GIFT OF
EVGENE MEYER^R.
SPEECHES, CORRESPONDENCE
AND POLITICAL PAPERS OF
CARL SCHURZ
IN SIX VOLUMES
SPEECHES, CORRESPONDENCE
AND POLITICAL PAPERS OF
CARL SCHURZ
SELECTED AND EDITED BY
FREDERIC BANCROFT
ON BEHALF OF
THE CARL SCHURZ MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
VOLUME IV.
JULY 20, i88o-SEPTEMBER 15, 1888
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
NEW YORK LONDON
fmicfcerbocfter press
1913
COPYRIGHT, 1913
BY
SCHURZ MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
ttbe ftnfcfcerbocfeet Tress, flew »orfc
CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV
1880.
PAGE
To James A. Garfield, July 2Oth .... i
Disappointment at Garfield's letter of acceptance —
Regarded as reactionary — A better course to have taken —
Schurz will appeal to the independents and conservatives.
Speech: Hayes in Review and Garfield in Prospect,
July 20th 5
From James A. Garfield, July 22d .... 44
Defends letter of acceptance — Refers to his attitude in
Congress on money question and civil service — Expresses
"great satisfaction" with Schurz's Indianapolis speech.
To James A. Garfield, September 22d ... 47
Popular impression growing that Garfield will return to
old patronage system and will not prevent sectional strife —
His recent visit to New York believed to be a surrender to
the "machine" — Schurz advises Garfield not to go to
Warren.
From James A. Garfield, October I5th ... 49
Republican victory in State elections due to fear of
reactionary tendencies of Democratic party — Hopes that
Schurz can allay the antagonism between German Repub
lican leaders in New York — Thanks Schurz for effective
campaign work.
To James A. Garfield, November 3d ... 50
Congratulates Garfield on his election but adds: "Your
real troubles will now begin. "
To John D. Long, December 9th .... 5°
A full statement of the case of the Ponca Indians.
268678
iv Contents of Volume IV
1881.
PAGE
To James A. Garfield, January 2d . . .78
Garfield's task more difficult than that of Hayes — Future
of Republican party dependent on success of his Adminis
tration — Cabinet should be chosen for their ability, energy
an4, integrity, rather than to please the party — Schurz dis
cusses the merits of several whose names have been
suggested.
To James A. Garfield, January i6th .... 84
"Geographical question" in choosing Cabinet of less
importance than efficiency — General tendency toward inde
pendence in politics — "Boss-rule" a menace to Republican
party — Democrats in earnest about civil service reform —
Garfield's Administration must be clean, and able in man
aging public business.
To James A. Garfield, January 28th . . 88
Indispensable qualifications for a Commissioner of
Indian Affairs — Francis A. Walker recommended.
To Henry L. Dawes, February 7th . . . . 91
Case of Big Snake reviewed — Dawes's misrepresenta
tions — Official evidence quoted to prove that Poncas were
content to remain in Indian Territory — Let the Poncas at
last have rest.
From James Freeman Clarke, February lyth . . 114
Congratulates Schurz on his able defense of his Indian
policy.
From Edward Eggleston, February 2 2d . . .114
The "large-minded wisdom" shown by Schurz while
Secretary of the Interior.
To James A. Garfield, February 22d . . . 115
Importance of a good Cabinet and a business Adminis
tration — Anxious to see Garfield succeed.
From Ex-President Hayes, March I oth . . .115
Acknowledges gratifying letter from Schurz — Hopes they
will always be friends — Cordial invitation to "Spiegel
Grove. "
From Ex- President Hayes, June 1st . . . . 115
Desirous of reading Schurz's editorial articles — Busy and
happy in private life — Interesting himself in local affairs.
Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
Essay: Present Aspects of the Indian Problem, July . 116
From Thomas F. Bayard, July yth . . . ' . 146
Enjoys Schurz's editorials — Reasons for Conkling's
solicitude for Arthur — Senate was prevented from electing
a President pro tern, before adjournment because a Demo
crat would have been chosen.
From Alonzo Bell, August 5th . . . . .147
Rejoices that "the Ponca war" has been ended by the
marriage of Tibbies and Bright Eyes — Will Dawes and
Long add this to their indictments? — Schurz's Indian
policy adhered to by Kirkwood.
To George M. Lockwood, October 27th . . .148
Anonymous charges against Schurz as to contingent
fund of Interior Department.
From Thomas Went worth Higginson, November 26th 149
Schurz invited to speak before Massachusetts Woman-
Suffrage Association — Fee and expenses offered.
To Thomas Wentworth Higginson, November 28th . 150
Has never taken part in Woman- Suffrage movement —
Impossible to accept invitation.
1882.
To George F. Edmunds, January i6th . . .150
Senate resolution calling upon the Interior Department
for copies of Secretary Schurz's ruling on the Northern
Pacific R. R. land grant — Schurz assailed in the newspapers
— Asks Edmunds to move for a thorough investigation of
the case.
From Thomas F. Bayard, January iQth . . . 151
Will aid in procuring fair investigation of the land-grant
case.
To George F. Edmunds, January 24th . . .152
The Northern Pacific R. R. land case, as a legal question,
was submitted to the Attorney-General and decided on
its merits — Newspapers ascribe false motives — Thorough
investigation desired.
From George F. Edmunds, January 27th . 153
Unless more specific charges are made, thinks it unlikely
the Senate will order an investigation — Advises fighting it
out in the press.
vi Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To Joseph Medill, September 2ist . . . . 154
Amused at Elaine's posing as a civil service reformer —
Schurz did not write the Evening Post criticism of Blaine —
Natural that Blaine should dislike one who believes the
author of the Mulligan letters would never be President.
1883.
To John T. Morse, Jr., January Qth . . .156
Is at work on the biography of Clay; but would prefer
Gallatin as a less laborious subject.
To the Editor of the Savannah News, January 3oth . 157
Homicides in the South — Their causes — How they are
encouraged — How they might be checked.
To George W. Julian, March I5th . . . . 168
Detailed reply to criticism of Schurz's administration
of the Department of the Interior in relation to railroads
and land-grants.
From Ex-President Hayes, March 2Oth . . . 181
Commends reply to Julian — Expresses theory as to why
Julian is "sour and malignant."
From Thomas Wentworth Higginson, April 5th . 181
Requests, for public use, a brief statement from Schurz
as to relative efficiency of women clerks as compared with
men.
To Thomas Wentworth Higginson, April 6th . . 182
Thinks men more efficient — Many women clerks do
excellent work — Impatience of discipline and frequent
absences of others bring down the average.
To B. B. Cahoon,t April nth 183
Comments on Julian's attacks — The attacks caused
Schurz to review, with several officials, his own records and
decisions as Secretary — Found they would bear the most
searching investigation — Democrats lack courage on tariff
question — Probable rearrangement of political parties in
near future.
To George W. Julian, May 9th . . . .184
Reviews and confutes charges brought against his admin
istration of Interior Department — Julian's personal record
brought out.
Contents of Volume IV vii
1884.
PAGE
From John A. Logan, February 28th . . .194
Asks Schurz to help him obtain the Republican nomina
tion for the Presidency.
To John A. Logan, February 29th . . . 194
Tries to dissuade Logan from his ambition — Logan's
record on civil service reform and specie payment questions
would prove fatal.
To W. G. Sherman, March ist .... 196
Is not an "apologist of violent methods" — For Repub
licans to urge want of improvement in the South as a
political issue, would be to defeat themselves — Remedy
for existing evils.
To Gustav Schwab, March 2ist . . . . 197
Declines a gift of $100,000 contributed by generous
friends.
To Simon Wolf, March 22d . . . . .198
Gives his views on Sunday opening of libraries, museums,
etc. and the operation of railroads — Prohibition laws —
Protecting public school system from sectarian control —
Equal taxation, etc.
From P. B. Plumb, May 6th . . 200
Desires an exchange of political views — New York
essential to Republican success.
To P. B. Plumb, May I2th 200
New York a doubtful State — Strong opposition to
Blaine — "Arthur stands much better" — DeHrous of seeing
the Republican party succeed.
From P. B. Plumb, May 25th 202
How Republicans might win without vote of New York
— Various candidates for nomination considered.
To P. B. Plumb, May 27th 203
New York necessary to Republican victory — Only a
candidate with unblemished record can succeed — Expects
to attend Chicago Convention.
viii Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To G. W. M. Pittman, June I5th . . . . 204
Why Elaine and the Republican party deserve defeat.
To Thomas F. Bayard, June 28th .... 205
Would be glad to see Bayard President — To defeat
Elaine, friends of Bayard and of Cleveland should work
together — Tammany's hostility to Cleveland would
strengthen him.
From Thomas F. Bayard, June 2Qth. . . . 208
Explains personal attitude and agrees with Schurz's
suggestions — Puzzled by New York politics and not asso
ciated with local politicians — Not seeking a nomination,
but, if nominated, would be grateful for Schurz's counsel
and aid.
To J. W. Hoag, June 29th 210
Asks Hoag to sign protest against Elaine's nomination — •
Mulligan letters show that Elaine traded upon his official
position for his own pecuniary advantage — Moral standard
of the country would be lowered by electing Elaine.
From John B. Henderson, July 1st . . . . 212
Elaine regrets Schurz's indisposition to support him —
How election to the Presidency would change Elaine —
Henderson asks Schurz to suspend all political activities
until after they meet.
To Thomas F. Bayard, July 2d . . . .213
Butler and Kelly using Bayard's name to prevent Cleve
land's nomination — Tammany against Cleveland — Import
ance of Bayard and Cleveland cooperating — Loss of Demo
cratic opportunities would mean Elaine's election.
To John B. Henderson, July 5th . . . .214
Glad to meet Henderson, but cannot support Blaine —
Schurz sorry to be in opposition — Some recently learned
facts cause a worse opinion of Blaine.
To Henry Cabot Lodge, July I2th . . . . 215
Urges Lodge carefully to review the reasons that have led
him to declare for Blaine — The demoralizing influence
Elaine's election would have on the country — Advises
Lodge not to accept nomination for Congress from the
Republican party while it is so corrupt — Sincere, warm,
personal feeling for Lodge.
Contents of Volume IV ix
PAGE
From Henry Cabot Lodge, July I4th . . . 218
Is grateful, but takes a different view of the political
situation — Obligations to Republican friends and neighbors
—Having freely declared his independent views, he will
accept a seat in Congress if offered — However mistaken,
he acts from a sense of duty — Must pay a debt of honor
to the party.
To Henry Cabot Lodge, July i6th . . . .221
Duty to one's country paramount to allegiance to one's
party — Elaine's record makes support of him impossible —
After decision, argument is superfluous.
From Henry Ward Beecher, July 29th . . . 222
Is "paralyzed" by statements of "eminent clergymen"
against Cleveland — Urges Schurz to postpone prospective
speech for Cleveland — Suggests choosing a candidate with
a clean record — Accepting Cleveland as candidate would
elect Elaine and kill the Independent movement.
To Henry Ward Beecher, July 3Oth .... 222
Schurz's investigations convince him that, aside from
the old offense, the stories are maliciously exaggerated for
political purposes — Known facts do not warrant the risk of
changing plans now.
Speech : Why James G. Blaine Should Not Be President,
August 5th 224
To Henry C. Bowen, August 6th . . . .272
Is disappointed at failure of Independent to publish Dr.
Ward's article championing Cleveland — In politics, public
virtue is more important than private.
To Albert H. Walker, August 7th . . . .274
Promises to read and give due weight to Walker's defense
of Blaine — Has spared no trouble to get at the truth.
From George William Curtis, August I5th. . . 274
Commends Schurz's anti-Elaine speech — Elaine's suit
for libel will have an important influence on the canvass —
Cleveland hurt by the scandal.
To Paul Bechtner, August 2Oth .... 275
Reply to open letter from Milwaukee purporting to
answer Schurz's anti-Elaine speech — The signers will be
invited to hear Schurz speak in Milwaukee.
x Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To George F. Hoar, August 226. .... 276
Detailed reply to Hoar's attempt to discredit some of the
statements in the Brooklyn anti-Blaine speech.
To Albert H. Walker, September 2d 284
Summary review of some of Elaine's letters, his explana
tions and pleas.
To R. R. Bowker, September 2ist . . . . 285
Activities in the campaign — Itinerary to October 4th —
Asks why more Independent speakers are not in the field —
Great demand for German edition of anti-Blaine speech.
To James Bryce, November 9th .... 286
Representatives, both State and National, the immediate
agents of the people — Senators generally of a higher aver
age but not belonging to a privileged class, excite no jeal
ousy — Two-house system entirely satisfactory.
To Grover Cleveland, November I5th . . . 288
Congratulations — Civil service question will demand
immediate decision — Cleveland's Administration might be
made a turning-point in country's political development —
Schurz does not seek anything for himself or for his friends.
To George Fred. Williams, November i6th . . 290
Urges Williams to point out to Democratic Representa
tives from Massachusetts that failure to support civil
service reforms will "quickly sweep their party out of
power again."
From Thomas F. Bayard, November I7th . . 291
Praise for Schurz 's part in campaign — Hopes Schurz may
officially assist in making victory fruitful.
To Thomas F. Bayard, November 2ist . . . 291
Appreciates Bayard's praise — Hopes to see him Secre
tary of State — Character of Cabinet of great importance —
Schurz will help only "as a private citizen."
To George Fred. Williams, November 23d . . 293
Approves formal declaration to Cleveland that anyone
asking for office ceases to represent the principles and aims
of the Independent movement — Elaine's speech after
defeat.
Contents of Volume IV xi
PAGE
To George Fred. Williams, November 26th . . 294
Could not accept Cabinet position because of the expense
— Advises Williams not to go into public life until he is
financially independent.
To Thomas F. Bayard, December 2d 296
If Bayard fears expense of Secretaryship of State, Schurz
suggests Secretaryship of the Treasury as less expensive
and more influential — Bayard "absolutely needed" in
Cabinet.
From Grover Cleveland, December 6th . . . 297
Had been expecting to meet Schurz — Regrets the ob
stacles to Schurz 's coming to Albany — "Glad to hear your
views at length."
To Grover Cleveland, December loth . . . 297
Schurz offers detailed views to President-elect — Civil
service reform the decisive question — What is required of a
reformer — Kind of Secretaries a reform President needs,
especially in Treasury, Post-Office and Interior Depart
ments — Importance of being well known — Slight import
ance of geographical considerations — Why Schurz did not
go to Albany.
1885.
To Grover Cleveland, January 3d . . . 305
Cleveland's civil service letter an "excellent docu
ment" — Schurz arguing with advocates of reform that
attitude of critical opposition will delay concentration of
energies and necessary reorganization of political forces —
Reports prospective absence during Cleveland's visit to
New York.
To John T. Morse, Jr., January 7th . . . . 308
Reasons for slow progress with Henry Clay.
To George W. Folsom, January loth . 3°8
Accepts partial reimbursement for campaign expenses —
Makes political contribution.
Lecture: Benjamin Franklin, January 21 st . 3°9
From Horace White, January 24th . . 348
Detailed account of an interview with Cleveland about
the choice of a Cabinet: Whitney, Bayard, Manning
and others — Cleveland had made no pledges — Desires re-
appointment of Pearson— Cleveland strongly opposed to
silver coinage — White's impression of Cleveland.
xii Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To Silas W. Burt, February i6th . . .351
Importance of selecting best men in Democratic party
for Cabinet positions — Several persons discussed — Impossi
bility of keeping all Presidential aspirants out of Cabinet —
Paramount object, to create public confidence.
To Grover Cleveland, February 24th . . . 354
Quality that an inaugural should contain — A suggestion
about the selection of the Cabinet.
To L. Q. C. Lamar, March 2d 355
Objections to making Whitney and Manning members of
Cabinet — Independents disappointed by the prospects —
Schurz's past experience in cooperating with Democrats —
Has no personal aims, but wishes to see reforms accom
plished — Why Lamar is appealed to and what he could do.
To President Cleveland, March 2ist . . . 360
Urges reappointment of Pearson — Cleveland's pledges to
make efficiency instead of partisanship the test in the civil
service will be judged by his treatment of Pearson — No
satisfactory middle course between spoils and reform.
From President Cleveland, March 23d . . . 363
Has had many urgent matters to attend to — Perplexed
by official documents on file in the Pearson case — Hopes
to do the right thing and to gratifiy the reformers — His
burden and solemn good intentions.
To President Cleveland, March 26th .... 364
"What I want to see recognized is not a person but the
public interest" — The Administration should either reap-
point Pearson or make public its reasons — The Independ
ents made a "free offering" of their support of Cleveland.
To President Cleveland, March 3ist . . 367
Congratulations on Pearson's reappointment — Regrets
appointment of Higgins in Treasury Department.
Essay: The New South, April .... 368
To John T. Morse, Jr., April 3Oth .... 400
Hopes to finish biography of Henry Clay by October.
To President Cleveland, June 25th . . . .401
Congratulations because of wise appointments — Fears
appointment of a partisan, instead of an efficient collector
of customs — Administration gaining friends — Bold and
consistent reform the only safety.
Contents of Volume IV xiii
PAGE
To President Cleveland, June 28th .... 404
Forwards letters — Warns against partisan acts of newly
appointed officials — Fears Hedden is but a cat's-paw of
H. O. Thompson — Newspaper comment.
To Lucius B. Swift, August 25th .... 406
Thinks criticism of Eastern Mugwumps by Western
newspaper too severe — Deplores recent appointments in
Indianapolis — Swift should submit to the President charges
against Jones.
To President Cleveland, September iyth . . . 407
Newspaper attacks on recent appointees reflect public
opinion — A President's advisers and chief officials should
be in thorough accord with him.
To President Cleveland, September 23d . . . 408
Personally grateful for investigation ordered of the
Bacon-Sterling affair — The anti-reform movement in
Democratic party should be met with calm and defiant
determination — Danger of having unsympathetic sub
ordinates.
To Alfred T. White, October I2th . . 409
Approves resolutions of Brooklyn Independent Repub
lican Committee — Duty of Independents to vote for the
best man, irrespective of party — Davenport represents
the best, Hill the worst, political tendencies — Attitude of
the Independents — Good administration the main question.
1886.
To President Cleveland, January i6th . .414
Urges the President to make public the reasons for sus
pension or removal from office — Quotes letter dismissing
a Republican appointee to make room for a Democrat —
The President dishonored and discredited by such partisan
rulings — Need of heroic measures — Believes a law requiring
the President to give his reasons for removals would be
both Constitutional and helpful to a reform Administration.
To Thomas F. Bayard, February 1st ... 420
Condolence — Devotion to duty and the pursuit of some
high aim will help him bear his bereavement.
xiv Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To President Cleveland, February 5th . . .421
Apprehends that the President misunderstood a recent
letter — Urges him to issue Executive order that "hereafter
in every case of removal the reasons therefor shall be
put upon public record" — Much criticism on the part of
Independents.
To George F. Edmunds, February 27th . . . 425
Favors publicity in all things connected with appoint
ments and removals — Moral authority of the Senate
hampered by secrecy.
To George F. Edmunds, March I2th . . 426
Is following with interest the debate on removals and
suspensions — How the lost prestige of Senate might be
regained — Scheme of Republican Senators to force Cleve
land to acknowledge partisan removals and appointments,
so as to justify spoils system.
From George F. Edmunds, March lyth . . . 428
Not at liberty to discuss what passes in secret session —
Cases in which publicity would be advantageous —
Instances where privacy during discussion is essential.
To George Fred. Williams, March i8th . . . 429
Points out lack of discrimination in speeches at Reform
Club dinner — Independents must never be partisans —
Commends Williams for denouncing Democratic "office-
mongering" in Massachusetts — Favorable opinion of
Edmunds — Need of a strong, searching but high-toned
opposition.
To George F. Edmunds, March i8th . .431
Secrecy in the Senate and secrecy in the Cabinet very
different — Secret sessions to consider nominations often
serve only party interests.
From George F. Edmunds, March 23d . . . 433
Failure of the President to keep his avowed intention
to make "removals for cause only" attributable to irresist
ible party pressure.
To George F. Edmunds, March 25th . . . , 433
By referring each case of suspension or removal to the
proper committee for open inquiry, the Senate could deter
mine the public judgment — The people have no confidence
in the Senate's secret proceedings in such matters.
Contents of Volume IV xv
PAGE
From George F. Edmunds, March 26th . . . 434
Departmental rule to refuse access to their official files
would embarrass Senate in ordering investigation by
committees as proposed by Schurz.
To Wayne McVeagh, March 3Oth .... 435
Without undervaluing the good Cleveland has done,
Schurz thinks the President has permitted partisan re
movals and appointments — Prefers to make no public
speech at present.
To W. H. Clarke, April 3Oth . . . 436
Lincoln's fears of the evil effects of officeseeking.
To Thomas F. Bayard, May 6th .... 437
Schurz's most pointed criticisms of Cleveland have been
made to Cleveland — Cleveland has exasperated the spoils
men without satisfying the reformers — Strength of Demo
cratic party waning — Cleveland can save the day by acting
with firmness and decision — Schurz watching with intense
and friendly anxiety.
From Thomas F. Bayard, May 8th, iyth . . . 439
Detailed defense of Cleveland and exposition of the
difficulties — Understands Schurz's attitude and invites
him to come and take a closer view.
To Thomas F. Bayard, May 2oth .... 442
Has not visited Washington lest the cry be raised of
Mugwump influence, etc. — The mistakes of an Adminis
tration are widely commented upon, while its good work
is scarcely known — Schurz makes specific and practical
recommendations as a means of success through reform —
President Grant's warning example — Does not regret sup
porting Cleveland.
To William Potts, June nth 447
Importance of the National Civil Service Reform
League's always telling the truth — Schurz anxious to have
Cleveland demonstrate that a public man's word can be
kept.
To Silas W. Burt, June 2ist 448
Growth of Cleveland's popularity — Importance of
popular confidence that he will be true to his pledges —
Why benefited by the attacks in the Senate.
xvi Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To L. Q. C. Lamar, September 28th . . .451
Schurz's interest in character of Administration wholly
non-personal — Must soon make a report on progress of
reforms — Commends selection for New York collector of
customs.
To L. Q. C. Lamar, October Qth .... 453
Believes in Cleveland's sincerity but does not excuse his
mistakes — The causes and the remedies — Seeks a friendly
understanding between the reformers and the Administra
tion — Suggests interchange of clerks in the Indian Bureau
and those at the Indian agencies — Spoils scandals.
To L. Q. C. Lamar, October I4th .... 457
Heads of Government offices throughout the country
should report to proper Department at Washington reasons
for each removal.
To Winslow Warren, October i6th . . . .457
Significance of the millionaire in politics — Menace to the
country where wealth is a candidate's only recommenda
tion.
To Abram S. Hewitt, October 26th .... 461
Asks whether Hewitt has given pledges as to appoint
ments or patronage.
From Abram S. Hewitt, October 27th . . . 462
Has given no promises as to appointments, etc., and
authorizes publication of his letter.
To John T. Morse, Jr., November I9th . . . 462
Anxious to avoid mistakes in Henry Clay.
To President Cleveland, December I5th . . . 463
At the request of Independents and Democrats, Schurz
points out to the President the more serious mistakes of his
Administration, his waning popularity and the possibility
of defeat should he accept renomination and the Republi
cans select almost any one but Blaine — Party success and
adhering to reform pledges hang together — Schurz's atti
tude toward the Administration and the charge of " imprac
ticability" — Spokesman for many in this unwelcome task.
Contents of Volume IV xvii
1887.
PAGE
From Charles R. Codman, January 3ist . . . 470
Gives details of conversation with Cleveland about his
pledges and his practice as to appointments — Believes
him to be a "faithful public servant, honest and manly,
simple and brave" — Thinking too much of details, he fails
to grasp the entire situation — Claims to have kept his
pledges, to have made progress and to be considering the
next advance — Codman would "deal gently with Mr.
Cleveland," in civil service reform report.
To Charles R. Codman February 3d ... 474
Cleveland's mistaken point of view — His explanations
fail to explain — Relations and obligations between Schurz
and Cleveland — The Independents must tell the truth and
the "report" must deal with actual conditions — Desires
conference with Codman before the "report" is made
public.
From Thomas F. Bayard, April nth . . . 477
Sends advance copy of Diplomatic Correspondence for
1886 — Elaine's diplomacy — Schurz's part in preventing
Elaine from being President.
To Thomas F. Bayard, April 28th .... 477
Recovering from effects of fall — Elaine's "beautiful sug-
gestiveness " in diplomacy and the good effects of his defeat
as Presidential candidate — Labor candidate in 1888 for
Presidency, probable — Inquires as to John Sherman's
chances for nomination.
From Ex-President Hayes, July 2d . . . . 479
Commends Schurz's Henry Clay and suggests he write a
"full autobiography."
From Ex- President Hayes, July 9th . . . 480
Rejoices that the autobiography is begun— Schurz's
political independence is an "enigma," a "mystery" to
the average party man.
From Moses Coit Tyler, August 3Oth . . .481
Praise of Henry Clay — Tyler has always been in political
accord with Schurz.
To Melville E. Stone, October 3d . . . .482
Declines to telegraph his views of the Administration.
xviii Contents of Volume IV
PAGE
To Mayor Hewitt, November 5th .... 482
Protests against Mayor Hewitt's favoring Fellows,
a confessed gambler and beneficiary of Tweed, for nomina
tion as district attorney — Advocates the appointment of
Nicoll, an energetic prosecutor — Gives reasons.
From George William Curtis, November 7th . . 490
Letter to Hewitt, a "great public service."
1888.
To Oscar S. Straus, February 7th . . . .491
Contemplates writing a political history of 1852-61 —
Cleveland's tariff message has strengthened his position —
Cleveland's chances of reelection good, if party stands by
him — Speculation as to the Presidential election.
To Thomas F. Bayard, March 7th . . . 493
The only charm of public office — Commends Bayard's
management of the fisheries dispute — Death of Emperor
William I. and possible results.
Address: Emperor William, March 21 st . . .495
To Thomas F. Bayard, March 29th .... 505
Intending to write a political history of the United States
beginning in 1852, he seeks Bayard's aid in obtaining access
to archives of foreign Governments.
To Thomas Bayard, April 3d 506
Thanks for passport and letters of introduction — Speech
on the dead Kaiser — If Blaine is nominated, will return and
oppose his election.
To Count Donhof, May i8th 507
The victim of a newspaper story involving Prince Bis
marck, Schurz asks how the matter is regarded in court
circles — Complains that the newspapers report him as
asking favors from the Crown Prince as to the Techow
affair.
To L. S. Metcalf, August I3th . . . . 509
Received with much friendliness by Prince Bismarck
and other German statesmen — Lucrative offers from
newspapers — Will write nothing for publication while
abroad.
Contents of Volume IV xix
PAGE
From Thaddeus C. Pound, July ist . . . . 509
Appeals to Schurz to come home and help elect Harrison
and Morton.
Public Letter: To Thaddeus C. Pound, September
i 5th . .... 510
How Cleveland missed his opportunity — The main con
sideration: how the public interest can be best served —
Elaine the real candidate — The tariff question — "The
Trust is the younger brother of the Tariff" — What Cleve
land has accomplished — Cannot support Harrison.
THE WRITINGS OF CARL SCHURZ
The Writings of Carl Schurz
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD1
INDIANAPOLIS, July 20, 1880.
My dear Garfield : Those are not the least sincere and
faithful among your friends who tell you the truth even
when it is not pleasant. I consider it a duty to say to you
that your letter of acceptance has been a great disappoint
ment to very many good men who hailed your nomination
with joy and hope. Especially the vagueness of your
language on the financial question, and still more the
positive abandonment of ground taken, and to a great
extent maintained, by the present Administration with
regard to the civil service, have greatly discouraged many
who expected to support you with enthusiasm and would
have done so with effect. I enclose a letter from Horace
White which is only one of a large number I have received
and which indicate that the same feelings are alive with a
much more numerous class of voters than that which he
represents. You will find a tone of regret running through
many Republican newspapers that do not always give an
indiscriminate approval to whatever the party and its
candidates may do or say. I do not even mean here the
Nation and kindred periodicals. I know how I feel about
it myself and how much stronger that feeling would be,
did I not know you personally.
1 Republican candidate for President.
VOL. IV.— I I
2 The Writings of [1880
If your letter was intended to serve your chances in the
election, the calculation was, I think, at fault. The voters
who are going to decide this election by throwing their
weight on one side or the other, are likely to be influenced
by one of two currents of sentiment : one is that since the
Republican party has been in power for twenty years, the
time has come for a change, and this current has great
strength; the other is that the administration of public
affairs during the last four years having been on the whole
satisfactory, it is most prudent to let well enough alone.
This current may become stronger provided the next
Republican Administration bids fair to be at least as good
as the present. As the one or the other of these currents
of feeling grows during the campaign, so the election will
go. Discussion of all other topics will have little effect
upon the result.
Your letter of acceptance has had the effect of strength
ening the current first mentioned and to weaken the second.
It is universally interpreted as opening a prospect of the
reestablishment of the party machine in the civil service,
and of a return to the old system of Congressional patron
age; in one word, as a reactionary movement in the direc
tion of the worst of old abuses. It is useless to speak after
this of regulating the civil service on sound principles by
Congressional action, for everybody knows as well as you
or I do that as long as Congressmen do not find their
patronage cut off by the Executive, it will be idle to expect
any Congressional legislation curtailing their enjoyment of
it. And I know from four years of executive experience,
that honest government is impossible with the civil service
as a party machine, and the public offices used as patron
age and perquisite. The intelligent public knows it just
as well. But the public does not know as well as I, that
if elected, your whole moral and intellectual nature will
recoil from a relapse into the old abuses. The public
Carl Schurz 3
judge you from your utterances. You may fear defeat
from two causes: the disaffection of the regular party
machinists, or the disaffection of the intelligibly inde
pendent and the conservative elements which stand be
tween the two parties but are necessary to the victory of
either. If you should suffer defeat in consequence of
strong declarations for sound principles which might at
tract the latter but disaffect the former, it would be a
defeat with honor. If you should suffer defeat by surren
dering sound principles and which might propitiate the
former but drive away the latter, it would be a defeat
with disgrace tainting your whole future career.
Where is the greater danger? The regular machine
elements do not like you because they know that at heart
you do not belong to them, whatever you may say. If
they support you it is because they cannot do otherwise;
they care for party success and are nothing without their
party. If they did wish your defeat, any concessions of
principle you may make to them will simply deprive you
as a man of their respect without winning their support.
I think they will support you because they cannot do
otherwise without destroying themselves. If Conkling
himself sulks, his following will go on without him and he
will lose it.
The independent and conservative elements care little
for mere party. If they support you, it is only because
they see reason to hope for good government at your
hands. They would have supported Hayes heartily and
vigorously, and expected to favor you in the same measure
as you would give assurance of improving upon what he
had begun. In the same measure as they see reason to
fear a reaction, they will drop off, thinking that it might
be just as well to try a change of party. It may be said
that they are not very numerous. But they are certainly
numerous enough to hold the balance of power in the
4 The Writings of [1880
contested States necessary for Republican success. With
out them you can scarcely hope to win.
Besides, you want not only to be elected, but, if elected,
to do good service to the country and credit to yourself
by your Administration. I think I am not entirely igno
rant of politics. Let me make a prediction. No skill in
nice balancing will save you from the necessity of choosing
between two roads, one running in the reactionary ten
dencies and machine politics, and the other in the direc
tion of intelligent, progressive and reformatory politics.
Following the latter, you will be supported by the best
intelligence and moral sense not only of the party but of
the country and be their leader. Following the former,
you will have the political machinists around you and will
be their slave. Just in the same measure as President
Hayes maintained in practice the principles with which
he started out, he won the applause of the country and
made his party strong. His failures, which have brought
the censure of the respectable opinion of the country
upon him, all were in the direction indicated in your
letter of acceptance as the course you mean to follow.
I must confess that I regretted to find in your first utter
ance as a candidate an implied disapproval of the prin
ciples of your predecessor, the good record of whose
Administration is at the present moment the best capital
of the party whose candidate you are. I should not
wonder if President Hayes had felt that himself.
I write you this for the reason that I think it necessary
you should understand every phase of the campaign, and
to point out some dangers which might be rendered still
more serious by further steps in the same direction. I
am going to speak here to-night and you will find my
speech in the papers. I had originally sketched out a
different and higher kind of argument, when your letter
appeared and forced me to adopt the low key you observe
i88o] Carl Schurz 5
in its tone. You will discern at once that it is intended to
stop all hasty demonstrations of discontent in independent
quarters. I have written to my correspondents to the
same [end], and with what effect, I do not know yet.
I communicate to you Horace White's letter, of course
only in strict confidence. Please return it to me after
having read it. I am on my way to the Pacific coast, and
letters will find me from Aug. 28th to Sept. 1st in San
Francisco, and until Sept. 5th at Sacramento City, Cal.
HAYES IN REVIEW AND GARFIELD IN PROSPECT1
FELLOW-CITIZENS: — In response to the invitation with
which a large number of citizens of Indianapolis have
honored me, I shall speak to you only on a few of the
questions which will be discussed in the present contest;
on those, I mean, which come directly home to you. I
shall address myself to the conservative business men of
the country, whose interest in politics is only that of the
public good.
I shall appeal not to your passions, but to your reason,
and, without any resort to the artifices of oratory, give
you a plain practical talk. The language of party war
fare is apt to fly to violent exaggerations for the purpose
of producing strong impressions; the language of reason
and common- sense will abstain from them. Let me say
at the outset, therefore, that I do not agree with those
who speak of the present moment as the greatest crisis
in the history of American affairs. The questions we
have to dispose of are not those of immediate life or death ;
but the bearing they have upon the future welfare of the
nation, and upon those interests which most nearly affect
us, is important enough to make us consider well what we
1 Speech at Indianapolis, Ind., July 20, 1880.
6 The Writings of
are doing, to call for our best judgment and a strenuous
effort to put that judgment into execution.
In the first place, let us make it clear to our own minds
what we want. The answer is, in a general term, that
we want a good government; that if we have it we must
endeavor to keep it, and that if we have it not we must
endeavor to get it. What is good government? We may
answer again in general terms, that it is a government
which well understands the public business, and, under
standing it, transacts it within the limits of its consti
tutional power, intelligently, honestly and justly. The
second question we have to answer to ourselves is, how
far the government we have comes up to these requisites,
how far the principles upon which it acts, the methods it
employs, the aims it pursues and the degree of efficiency
it develops, answer the public need, and how far in this
respect we ought to preserve what we have or look for
other things we have not.
As a member of the present Administration now on the
point of yielding its power into the hands of a new set of
public servants, I may be permitted to appeal to the candid
judgment of the American people as to the manner in
which the public business has been conducted during these
last years. While it might be natural that, bearing a
part of the responsibility myself, I should be inclined to
take a favorable view of its performances, still I feel that
my ways of thinking are independent enough not to betray
me into mere partisan eulogy, and that we may confidently
rely upon the judgment frequently expressed, not only
by our friends, but also by very many candid men among
our opponents. As a matter of course I do not expect
Democratic politicians and orators to give us that fairness
of judgment in the heat of an election contest which they
could not deny us during the repose of a previous period,
and which they will not deny us when this contest is over ;
Carl Schurz 7
for it is a common experience that partisan spirit will,
under the excitement of the campaign, call a man a villain
to-day whose worth was recognized yesterday, and whose
merit will again be admitted to-morrow. I think I am
not exaggerating when I say that the fair-minded men
of this country will admit, and do admit in their hearts
to-day, that on the whole the public business has been
conducted by this Administration, as far as it was in its
control, honestly, intelligently and successfully. I should
be the last man to claim perfection for it, for as one of
those who had an opportunity to watch affairs in detail,
I am well aware of errors committed and of failures suffered
in this and that respect. No administration of govern
ment ever has been or ever will be free from them; and
with respect to them I claim no larger measure of charity
than would be claimed by any member of a government
acting upon correct motives of duty, and willing to have
the acts and the general success of the Administration
impartially judged as a whole. It has maintained the
public faith and raised the credit of the United States to
a point never reached before. It has with consistent
energy followed a policy relieving the country of the evils
of an irrational and dangerous money system, and greatly
promoted the prosperity of the people by the restoration
of specie payments. It has funded enormous masses of
the National indebtedness at a lower interest, and thus
saved many millions a year to the taxpayer. It has
faithfully executed the laws with a conscientious observ
ance of sound Constitutional principles. By its fidelity
to these Constitutional principles it has removed many
obstacles which stood in the way of a friendly understand
ing between the different sections of the country and
different classes of people. It has, under trying circum
stances, when the public peace was disturbed by riot and
violence on the part of a numerous class of citizens,
8 The Writings of [1880
greatly aided the restoration of order and security by a
calm and moderate employment of the limited power at
its command, without in any case resorting to a doubtful
stretch of authority. It has reformed many abuses in the
public service, infused a higher sense of duty into its
different branches, raised its moral tone, increased its
efficiency, punished dishonesty and kept the service
unsullied by the scandals arising from lax notions of
official integrity. In saying this I am not unmindful of
the fact that the reform of the public service has not
overcome, in so high a degree as was intended and as was
desirable, the obstacles opposing it in the shape of inveter
ate political habit and antagonistic interest ; that therefore
the highest standard has not been reached; that some
mistakes have been made in the selection of persons for
public position — points of which I shall say more in the
course of these remarks; but it is certainly true that the
service is now showing a greater degree of efficiency, a
higher moral spirit and a stronger sense of duty than has
prevailed perhaps at any time since the period when the
administrative machinery was demoralized by the intro
duction of the spoils system. It has in many of its branches
introduced rules and methods which have borne excellent
fruit, and are capable of the most beneficent development
if further carried on by coming administrations in sym
pathy with them.
I think I can say without exaggeration that these
achievements will stand unquestioned in history by all
fair-minded men. Withal the country is on the whole
in good condition. The people are prosperous again;
business is reviving ; our industries are active ; labor finds
ready and remunerative employment; the Government
enjoys the confidence of the business community in a rare
degree, as our financial management has won the con
fidence of the whole world. Everybody sees reason to look
i88o] Carl Schurz 9
hopefully into the future, provided the conduct of our
public affairs remains as good as it has been.
Now the time for a change in the personnel of the Ad
ministration has arrived, and if the present conduct of
affairs is on the whole good, patriotic and sensible citizens
will see to it that the change now to come be such as to
give the greatest possible guarantee for the preservation of
all that is good, and, wherever possible, for an improve
ment on it. They certainly will endeavor to prevent such
a change as would threaten a serious deterioration. We
should, therefore, favor that candidate for the Presidency
who in this respect can be best depended upon.
We have to deal with two parties and their candidates.
The Republican party, with James A. Garfield at its head,
and the Democratic party, with General Hancock. I
do not deem it necessary to discuss the possibility of the
victory of the Greenback party and their nominees, for
the simple reason that their chances of success are not
perceptible to the ordinary eye, and that their organiza
tion may be looked upon as a mere tender to the
Democracy.
Now I desire you to put before your minds with impar
tial candor the question, whether the Democratic candidate
and the party behind him can be best depended upon to
preserve that which is good in the present condition of
things, and develop it in the direction of improvement?
I wish to state the question mildly, for I am not partisan
enough — indeed my orthodoxy in that respect has now
and then been questioned — to deal in wholesale and indis
criminate denunciation of our opponents. I do not mean
to incite your prejudices and inflame your passions, but
to discuss facts and to draw from them legitimate con
clusions. I do not want the party to which I belong to
depend for success upon the failings of its opponents, and
I am, therefore, not inclined to exaggerate the latter.
io The Writings of
While adhering to one party I desire the other to be as
good as possible, so as to compel my own to do its best.
In this respect, therefore, I sincerely declare that I wish
well to the Democratic party. I once participated in an
attempt, which attempt miscarried, to move it up to the
progressive requirements of the times. The contending
political parties in a republic should be such in point of
mental and moral constitution and capability that the
government may be intrusted to either without serious
apprehension for the safety of the public interest. I hope
it will be so some day, and I wish it were so now. Let us
see whether it is so now.
To speak in all candor, it appears to me that the Demo
cratic party labors under historic as well as constitutional
difficulties. Since the downfall and disappearance of the
slave-power as a compact political interest, from which
the Democratic party, more than twenty years ago,
derived its morals, its logic, its political skill and states
manship, that party has been floundering about, out of
logical connection with the questions of the day; never
knowing the time of day; always looking for something
to turn up, and when something did turn up, spoiling it;
lamely lagging in the rear of the events and requirements
of the day ; always behind ; denouncing as impossible things
that were already accomplished facts; with a strange
incapacity to understand the present and to measure the
future, making itself the recipient and rallying point for
all dangerous and obstructive tendencies and elements,
and thus committing blunder after blunder, which at the
moment of their birth it uniformly gloried in as great
strokes of policy, from the secession movement in 1861
down to the nomination of General Hancock in 1880.
There are many good and clear-headed men in the Demo
cratic party, men whom I personally esteem and whose
friendship I value, who deplore this condition of things
Carl Schurz n
as much as I do, but are unable to control the obstrep
erous elements and tendencies of the organization, and to
fit it for the tasks and responsibilities of government.
It is not my habit to rake up the embers of past discords
and to substitute for the living questions of the present
issues which lie behind us ; but if we want to ascertain the
prevailing tendencies and the present capability for good
government of the Democratic party in accordance with
the spirit and requirements of the present day, it is not
unfair to review some striking experiences as illustrations.
Looking back to the year 1864, the fourth year of the
civil war, when the Southern Confederacy was near the
total exhaustion of its resources, we find the Democratic
party in National Convention solemnly declaring that
the war was a failure and must be abandoned. A few
months afterwards the triumph of our arms was decided,
the Confederacy collapsed, the restoration of our Union
was assured and the Democracy was forced to acknow
ledge that the war had been a success. The Democracy
had proclaimed its despair of the Republic just at the time
when the triumph of the Republic was ripe. It became
evident to every one that, had the Democratic policy
been then adopted, the war would have indeed become a
failure and the Union have gone to wreck and ruin.
When slavery breathed its last and its abolition had
become an evident logical necessity, requiring nothing
more than the form of law, the Democratic party declared
that the abolition of slavery would be the ruin of the
country and must by all means be averted. Who is
there to deny now that the abolition of slavery was an
absolute necessity, and has turned out a blessing? The
Democrats are compelled to admit it themselves.
When as measures of settlement the thirteenth, four
teenth and fifteenth amendments were passed, the Demo
cratic party declared them void and entitled to no respect,
12 The Writings of [1880
and almost immediately afterward found itself compelled
to admit that for the peace of the country and as a basis
for future development these Constitutional amendments
had to be maintained.
Coming down to more recent history, when the Repub
licans in Congress had passed the resumption act in 1875,
and the fruit of the restoration of specie payments was
almost ripe to be plucked, the Democratic party in its
National Convention of 1876 thought it a smart thing to
declare that the very act passed for bringing specie pay
ments was an impediment in its way and must be repealed.
And who is there to deny now that had the act been re
pealed under the pressure of all the inflation elements in the
country, the confusion of our financial policy necessarily
ensuing would have prolonged the evils of an irredeemable
paper currency under which we were then suffering? I
need not accumulate further examples to show how incap
able the Democratic party proved itself to understand
and appreciate not only the immediate requirements of
the times but facts that had been virtually accomplished,
and how its greatest efforts were directed to the end of -
obstructing things that had become inevitable, and which
it afterwards found itself compelled to admit as good.
And now in this year of 1880, when the war issues are
fairly behind us; when by its conciliatory spirit and its
strict observance of Constitutional principles the Govern
ment has removed all the elements of discord between the
two sections which it was in its own power to remove;
when, aided by a wise and successful financial policy,
general prosperity is again blessing the land, and when
the people look above all things for enlightened practical
statesmanship that well understands the questions it has
to deal with to foster and develop that prosperity; now
the Democratic party knows nothing better to do than
to set aside all its statesmen of known and settled opinions,
i88o] Carl Schurz 13
political experience and training, and to nominate for the
Presidency a major-general of the regular army, a pro
fessional soldier, who has never been anything else but
that, and who from the very nature and necessities of his
profession has always stood aloof from the management
of political questions.
I shall certainly not attempt to depreciate the character
of General Hancock and the great services which he has
rendered to the country. He is a gentleman of irreproach
able private character, which I shall be sorry to see any
effort made to discredit. As a soldier he has shown signal
bravery and skill in the handling of troops under difficult
circumstances, and his name is identified with some of
the most splendid achievements of the war. For all this
every good citizen will honor him. But the question is
not whether we shall honor a deserving general.
The question is whether that deserving general would
be the kind of a President the country needs, a President
who can be depended upon successfully to solve the prob
lems of statesmanship which are now before us ; to preserve
the good things already done and to improve upon them.
To lead battalions of brave men against a fortified position,
or to win a campaign by a dashing manoeuvre, is one thing ;
to regulate the finances of the country in such a way that
the blessings of a sound currency may be permanently
secured to us; to develop our commercial opportunities;
to organize the civil service in such a manner that it may
conduct the public business upon sound business prin
ciples, is another; and in the latter case the brave spirit
and ability which storms hostile batteries and lays low
invading hosts does not appear in the first line of import
ance. When such difficult civic duties are to be performed
we shall, as reasonable men, inquire whether the brilliant
captain, who appears so glorious at the head of his columns,
is also familiar with the complex interests which in official
14 The Writings of [1880
station he would have to serve; whether his knowledge,
training, experience and mental habits fit him clearly to
distinguish on the political field good from evil, not only
in the abstract, but in the confusing multiplicity and
variety of forms in which things appear in reality ; whether
he will be sufficiently equipped to penetrate, restrain and
baffle the wiles of political intrigue and the conflicts of
faction among the friends, which always surround the
chief magistrate of a great commonwealth; whether he
will show himself fitted to move on that field of civil action
and duty, where forces are handled and directed not by
a mere rule of command and obedience, but by finding
the just measure of firmness and moderation in the pursuit
of great objects and in the resistance to evil influences. I
cannot impress it too strongly on your minds that there
can be no greater difference than that between the hand
ling of troops in a campaign and the handling of the
political forces of a great people and the handling of
the political affairs of a great government.
Moreover it must not be forgotten that this Govern
ment is no longer the simple machinery it was in the early
days of the Republic. The bucolic age of America is
over. The interests the Government has to deal with are
no longer those of a small number of agricultural com
munities, with here and there a commercial town. They
are the interests of nearly fifty millions of people spread
over an immense surface, with occupations, pursuits and
industries of endless variety and great magnitude ; large
cities with elements of population scarcely known here in
the early days, and all these producing aspirations and
interests so pushing, powerful and complicated in their
nature, and so constantly appealing to the Government
rightfully or wrongfully, that the requirements of states
manship demanded in this age are far different from those
which sufficed a century ago.
i88o] Carl Schurz 15
It is believed by many that it is an easy task to perform
the duties of the President of the United States — that the
only thing he has to do is to form a program of policy
which he desires to carry out, and to call good and experi
enced men into his Cabinet to attend to the detail of the
business, without meddling himself with its intricate
complications. The experience I have gathered from
personal observation, not only as a member of the legis
lative body but also of the Cabinet, has convinced me that
this is a great mistake.
If all the President had to do were to select seven men
who agree with him as to the principal objects to be ac
complished, and then consult and agree with them about
the means to be used, undisturbed by the pressure of out
side forces, it would, indeed, be a comparatively easy and
a comfortable thing. But the fact is that the President
of the United States, by the very nature of his position,
is obliged to spend far more time in listening to the advice
and the wishes and the urgency of men outside of his
Cabinet, than to his consultations with Cabinet ministers
themselves. The opposition he may encounter from the
opposing party in Congress and in the press is, in most
cases, the least of the difficulties he has to contend with.
The greatest puzzles that are apt to perplex and sometimes
to overwhelm his mind come from his own party, who
have a claim upon his attention and insist to have that
claim respected. Not only upon the great measures of
his Administration, but upon every detail, the advice of
the members of his party, especially those in Congress,
is urged upon him with all imaginable sorts of argument
and from all imaginable sorts of motive. There is scarcely
an appointment he has to make, there is certainly not a
reform he wants to execute, that he will not have to carry
through a siege and storm of opposing wishes and interests.
Every object he pursues will run counter to the wishes
16 The Writings of
not only of his opponents, but of some of his friends;
every reform, the execution of which may appear to him
desirable, will tread upon the toes of somebody whose
interests lie in the abuse to be reformed, or who has a
friend to protect who is connected with it; and all these
pleas, representations, remonstrances, urgencies and
pressures go to the President, not through the members
of his Cabinet, but behind their backs ; and it is a matter
of long and varied experience that unless the President
himself has a sufficient knowledge of affairs, a clear eye
to see through arguments and motives, and that temper
and skill which are necessary to resist without offending,
and to conciliate without giving up his objects, he will
inevitably be run over and lamentably fail. No man who
has not witnessed it has an adequate conception of the
furious pressure the President is subjected to, especially
during the first period of his administration; and that
first period is apt to determine the character of the whole.
No Cabinet minister can carry out a reform in the branch
of the public service over which he presides unless he has
the President at his back, for if the President yields to
remonstrances and urgencies brought to bear upon him
against such a reform, the Cabinet minister will find
himself baffled at every step.
I speak from experience when I say that most of the
good things that have been done under this Administra
tion, whatever merit the respective Cabinet ministers
may deserve for them, are no less due to the clear-headed
and faithful support, frequently called the "amiable ob
stinacy," with which President Hayes stood behind them
by warding off the opposition. It is for such reasons of
inestimable benefit to an administration that the Presi
dent himself should have had the experience of active work
in legislative bodies, and especially in the Congress of the
United States. It will require in a President a high degree
Carl Schurz 17
of that intuitive genius with which but very few men in a
century are endowed to make his administration success
ful without that experience.
Now put, for the sake of argument, in that most trying
position, General Hancock or any man trained exclusively
in the walks of army life, of which he is so conspicuous an
ornament — I mean a man not endowed with that intuitive
genius which I have spoken of, and which even his most
ardent friends, as I understand, do not claim for General
Hancock. What has there been in the school of his past
life to fit him for it? As a boy he was accepted by the
Government as a cadet at West Point, and that was his
college and university. I have high respect for that
military school. Every branch of military science is
taught there, I have no doubt, with knowledge, skill and
success. The principles of military honor and the great
law of command and obedience are inculcated as the guid
ing stars of the future life of the student. The affairs of
ordinary human existence outside of the military profes
sion, and the problems it has to deal with, are necessarily
treated as matters of only secondary moment. Our
military school at West Point has given us many glorious
soldiers who have adorned the history of the country;
but it has never been pretended that it was meant to be,
or was, a school of statesmanship. That school absolved,
the young man entered into the regular army service. Of
all classes of our society it may be said that our regular
army is the most exclusive, the most widely separated
from the ordinary business life of the people in point of
sympathy, duty and habit. If we have an apart class
among us, a class whose contact with the cares and en
deavors and business and objects of the life of the masses
is only occasional and unsympathetic; a class that in its
ideas and aims is separated from the multitude, it is the
officers of the regular army. This is not meant to dis-
VOL. IV. — 2
i8 The Writings of [1880
credit in any sense the character of our service or of the
officers in it; it is the almost unavoidable peculiarity of
their training and situation, for which they are in no way
responsible. Their duties may be arduous; but, except
in places of highest command in active warfare, they are
extremely simple, specific and narrow ; and it is a common
experience that the mental horizon of men is apt to be
come limited by the sphere of their duties. I have heard
it said a hundred times by men who had spent the best
part of their lives in the regular army, and then were
thrown upon their own resources to make a living in
ordinary pursuits, that their army life had unfitted them
for the every-day tasks of society. They found them
selves, in a multitude of cases, utterly bewildered by
the competition they had to run with those who had been
trained in civil pursuits. How is it possible to assume
that men who have spent the best part of their lives, who
have grown old in that exclusive atmosphere, should
show particular fitness for the most complex and confus
ing of all duties, the highest civil office in the land?
It may be said, therefore, without exaggeration, that
in a hundred cases to one, by taking an old regular army
officer, who has never been anything else, and putting
him into the highest and most difficult political position,
you may spoil an excellent general in making a poor
President.
There he is, with an honest intention to do right and to
serve his country. Problems of financial policy suddenly
rise up before him — questions of revenue, of commercial
policy, not in the way of general maxims and vague
principles, but in the mysterious shape of practical prob
lems to be applied to a given state of circumstances;
questions of party politics, where the interests of the
public and of the party are curiously mixed together in
bewildering confusion. The man at the head of affairs
i88o] Carl Schurz 19
means to do right ; let us assume his Cabinet officers mean
the same. But now a host of Senators, Representatives,
prominent political leaders from all parts of the country
swarm in upon him. Having never had any practical
contact with the workings of financial or commercial
systems, having stood aloof from the intricacies of political
management, the man at the head of the Government is
the objective point of all their efforts. There are a
hundred politicians of name and importance, real or
pretended, who lay claim to his attention, and having
heard them all — as he has to hear them — and finding
that their views and objects run counter to one another,
he suddenly discovers himself in an unexpected state of
uncertainty as to what is right and what is not, what
will serve the interest of the country and what will benefit
or injure the interests of his party. He has to meet a
multitude of arguments put at him by a multitude of
men from a hundred different motives, all seeming to him
important, because all are to him new; not a few among
the most prominent of those who urge their opinions most
strongly upon his mind, trained and skilled by long prac
tical schooling in all the arts of covering up the weak points
of their cases and concealing their motives by specious
arguments, and of making private interests appear those
of the public. They have all contributed to his election
and success; they are all entitled to his regard; he has
heard of them all as prominent men entitled to respect;
he has considered them all as men entitled to credit ; and
now he discovers that their opinions clash and that their
aims are different and contradictory. Scores of them
beseeching him with their urgency to make him believe
that the Cabinet minister he trusts, by the things he
attempts to carry out is injuring the party upon whose
permanence the life, or at least the welfare, of the Repub
lic depends. He has yet to learn that the Senator in
2O The Writings of [1880
his State or the Congressman in his district has interests
of his own, peculiar to himself; that those interests are
sometimes not exactly those of the country or even of the
party at large; that the man who is recommended to him
for high ofBcial position, as a model citizen of the Republic,
has attained that position, in the opinion of his backer,
less by services rendered to the commonwealth than by
services rendered to a person; that the same man will be
represented to him by others, not as the model citizen,
but as a villain who cannot be trusted a moment. He will
be told that those who judge of political objects and the
means by which to attain them from a higher standpoint
than mere personal or partisan interest, are amiable theor
ists, who are well enough in their way, but are useless in
the practical conduct of politics; that the practical poli
tician, who cares less for public questions but is skilled
in the management of men, is after all the man who can
alone be counted upon to preserve the power of his party,
and thereby the salvation of the Republic. And when
he has gone through this for weeks and months, and his
head begins to swim in the confusing contests of interests
and ambitions entirely new to him, and he feels himself
in many things he has done or left undone under a pres
sure giving him no rest of mind, a helpless tool of foreign
wills instead of being the director of things, he will then
conclude that the repulse of the fiercest onset at the battle
of Gettysburg and the taking of the angle of intrenchments
in the Wilderness, glorious feats of arms, were after all
very simple things compared with this. And as he goes
on and gradually the light of experience dawns upon him,
and he discovers glimmers of truth and finds himself
unable to correct mistakes irretrievably made, and to
redress injuries irremediably inflicted, and to recover
failures which have then become part of the history of
the country, he finally will see reason to wish that his
i88o] Carl Schurz 21
friends had permitted him to enjoy his military renown
in peace instead of casting over it a cloud of civil failure.
The picture I have drawn is one which every man of
experience in political affairs will recognize as applicable
to every novice in politics placed in the Presidential chair,
even under ordinary and favorable circumstances. But
what is likely to happen to such a man elevated to the
Presidency with such a motley host upon his back as the
Democratic party is to-day?
That party as now constituted is indeed a wonderful
mixture of elements. I shall certainly not question the
convictions and the motives of the enlightened and patri
otic men that are in it who mean to do the best they can
for the country with the means they have; but it is not
unjust to them to say that many of them are undoubtedly
not without their misgivings as to the latter, and are held
where they are by the strength of life-long associations,
by the traditions of circles and constituencies within which
they move and from which they have derived their posi
tion and power ; and also by the opinions grown from long
struggles against what they considered and what in some
cases may have been abuses on the other side; men of
good intentions, laboring under the disadvantage of seeing
their aspirations and endeavors hemmed in and baffled
by followers and by circumstances which they cannot
control. There is the Southern element of which I shall
certainly not be inclined to deny that a marked improve
ment has taken place in the temper and aspirations of
many of its leading men, who have cast the old ambitions
of the war period behind them and are now with a patriotic
spirit endeavoring to serve the country, and to whom
therefore our esteem is due. It is also true that they
begin to be supported by a class of orderly and well-
meaning citizens; but it is no less true that they find
themselves hampered and clogged by noisy factions in
22 The Writings of
their constituencies, who, whether they are a majority
or not, endeavor, and I regret to say in many instances
successfully, to impress their temper upon the character
of Southern politics; still smarting under the defeats of
the war and the losses which those defeats had brought
upon them ; some of them with a sullen feeling that those
defeats were an insult as well as a wrong to them, for
which, in some way, they must have satisfaction; with
a vague desire to retrieve of the old condition of things
something they do not know exactly what; and withal
insisting that something is due to them as Southern men
in politics, as well as in society, and in their worldly for
tunes as compared with the rest of mankind; rather
reckless of the rights of others; with financial ideas desti
tute of a due regard for the good faith of the country,
inclined to fly to any money system which they vaguely
think can be manipulated so as to make them rich again
by legerdemain ; deeming it due to them that large appro
priations should be made for their particular benefit, for
all imaginable purposes, good, bad and indifferent, merely
to pour money into that section of the country; with
scarcely any traditions in government, except such as
existed in their States before the war, and the reactionary
desires and attempts of the party immediately after it;
with appetites sharpened by long exclusion from power
and the sweets of office, and greedy to make the most of
that if they can obtain it.
There is the Northern Democracy, also with men of
statesman-like instincts in it and excellent intentions,
but behind them a large number of restless and ambitious
politicians who, for twenty years, have been boxing the
compass to find some principle or some policy, to avail
themselves of some passion, or some prejudice by which
they might win an election and regain the possession of
power. Such an element, however, will be found, more
Carl Schurz 23
or less, represented in all parties. But the Democracy
has had the misfortune of exercising a remarkable power
of attraction for the adventurous, and even the dangerous,
elements of our population; and its attempts to regain
power by all sorts of devices, and the advocacy of all sorts
of principles and policies has gathered under its banner
so many divergent tendencies and incongruous elements,
held together by the only desire to regain the spoils of
government, that when the party comes into power
nobody can tell which element will be uppermost in
strength and determine the current of its policy.
Thus we find there the hardest of hard-money men hand
in hand with the wildest of inflationists, the freest of
free-traders and the stiffest of protectionists ; we find them
in their platforms declaring for the restoration of specie
payments to satisfy one part and the repeal of the resump
tion law in the same sentence to satisfy the other part of
the organization. We find men who would scorn the
idea of faithlessness to our national obligations in the
closest alliance and cooperation with those who repudi
ated their debts in their own States, and who would not
hesitate a moment to repudiate the debts of the Republic.
We find men sincerely desirous of cultivating among the
Southern people the heartiest sentiments of loyalty to
the Republic and respect for the rights of all, irrespective
of color, and by their side men who still think that their
own rights are worth nothing unless they are permitted
to oppress the rights of others. And it must not be
forgotten that upon these different elements the official
declarations of platforms have not the least effect. While
the party in its national conventions declares for specie
payments, that does not hinder a moment Democratic
Congressmen from opposing resumption in Congress, or
the Democrats of Ohio from nominating their inflation
leader, General Ewing, or the Democrats in Indiana from
24 The Writings of
nominating the fiat-money man, Landers, for the governor
ship of those States; nor does it prevent the Democrats
in many of the Western and Southern States from pur
suing their greenback agitation as lustily as before.
While they declare for an observance of our national
obligations, that does not hinder the Democrats in many
of the Southern States from going on in their work of
local repudiation, and declaring that local repudiation is
so good a thing that it ought to be made general. But
all these factions, these incongruous elements, are held
together by one great impulse — that is, the appetite for
public plunder, which the exclusion from power for twenty
years has stimulated to a degree of keenness scarcely ever
seen before. Now consider that, if General Hancock ever
can be elected, it must be by a very hearty cooperation
of all these elements — the Greenback- Democrats in Ohio,
Maine and Indiana and the West and South, with the
hard-money men in New York, New Jersey and other
States; the protectionists in one quarter and the free
traders in another; the war-Democrats in the North and
the reactionary elements elsewhere; and to all these
elements together, General Hancock, if successful at all,
will owe his success ; and all those elements, if the success
ful party is to be maintained in its strength and continued
in power, must be satisfied in order to hold them together.
That will be the situation and such the problem which
the soldier, to whom political science and management so
far have been a sealed book, will have to solve. What will
he do to satisfy the hard-money men without driving the
Greenbackers away? What will he do to keep the Green -
backers in the party without betraying the principles of
the hard-money men? How will he satisfy the Southern
element, that claims to have been robbed by an anti-
slavery war, and is entitled to restitution in some shape,
and at the same time keep the management of the govern-
i88o] Carl Schurz 25
ment within the bounds of economy and propitiate the
Northern taxpayer? How will he content the Southern
men in the distribution of offices, who will claim that they
have furnished the majority of votes and are therefore
entitled to the lion's share? And how will he keep the
Northern Democracy in good spirits and in working order
by a distribution of the patronage which will appease the
hunger of twenty years? These are some of the problems
which the unsophisticated soldier- President, whose whole
sphere of mental activity has so far been confined to the
handling of troops on the field of battle, and to the narrow
horizon of duty which army life in times of peace com
prises, will have to solve. And these problems he will
have to solve not in the quiet of the closet, surrounded by
a few able counsellors in peaceful consultation, but quickly,
under the bewildering pressure of not a hundred but
thousands of eager politicians, who fill the ear with a babel
of sound and with a pandemonium of conflicting ambitions.
This is a task that would tax a man of phenomenal genius
to the utmost of his capacity ; but what will become of one
who is unaided even by the least experience of political
life, and has nothing but his inner consciousness to measure
the value of the arguments and pretenses which are dinned
into his ears and the character of the interests that besiege
him with their urgency for immediate action?
Let us see now what, in view of all this, we have a right
to expect from a Democratic victory. Is it the main
tenance of our public faith? While there are prominent
opponents of repudiation in the Democratic party, it is a
notorious fact that all the elements hostile to the Consti
tutional discharge of our National obligations have also
gathered under the same banner. Nearly all, if not all,
the States that have repudiated or speak of repudiating
their own debts are Democratic States, with heavy Demo
cratic majorities, furnishing Democratic electoral votes
26 The Writings of
and Congressmen. Who will tell me that it is certain
they will be more conscientious with regard to the national
debt than they showed themselves with regard to their
own? Have we a right to expect a sound financial policy?
While there are many good, sound-money men in the
Democratic party, it is equally well known that the
Democratic party has irresistibly attracted to its fold
a very large majority of the Greenbackers, inflationists
and fiat-money men. It has, indeed, in its national
platforms of late declared for sound money; but in 1876,
while it pronounced for resumption it demanded at the
same time the repeal of the resumption law. I ask, what
would have become of resumption had the resumption
law been repealed? But while thus speaking of sound
money in their national platforms, is it not equally true
in a large number of the States the most prominent infla
tionists are put forward for the highest honors followed
by the masses of their party? So General Ewing, in Ohio,
so General Butler, in Massachusetts, so Mr. Landers, in
Indiana; while in Maine, Democrats and Greenbackers
fuse in cordial embrace, and while in many of the Western
and most of the Southern States the Democrats almost
en masse represent unsound financial ideas. Is it not
true, that to the very last, resumption was opposed in
Congress by Democratic Congressmen? Why, when
General Hancock was nominated, the attraction for the
Greenbackers seemed to be so strong that the venerable
Peter Cooper and General Sam. Carey, of Ohio, were
among the first to pay to him their devotion and wish him
success.
Now, can anybody foretell what will happen in these
respects in case of a Democratic victory? In fact, we do
not know whether the advocates of the public faith or the
repudiationists, whether the hard-money men or the
inflationists, are the strongest element in the Democratic
Carl Schurz 27
party throughout the country, and which of those ele
ments will control its policy. I appeal to you, business
men, am I going too far in saying that all this is dark, and
that in voting the Democratic ticket you will take a
gambling chance, and that chance being rather against
you? Are you prepared, taxpayers of the country, to
take that gambling chance under such circumstances?
But one thing is certain, that the Democratic party,
in its fashion, will reform the civil service. That it will
certainly do ; it will do it according to an old Democratic
principle, "to the victors belong the spoils." That prin
ciple is of Democratic origin, and the Democratic party
has adhered to it with a fidelity worthy of the best cause.
Other parties were infected by it, but the Democratic
party may claim the glory of its paternity and of its most
unswerving advocacy. It may abandon any other prin
ciple, but not that. If there ever was a Democrat, either
at the head of the organization or in the ranks, who has
proved recreant to that great doctrine, and made pro
clamation of his opposition to it, I do not know his name.
It is so closely interwoven with the traditions of that party
that I doubt very much whether it could be abandoned
without destroying the party's existence. That great
word, "the cohesive power of public plunder," had its
first and most pointed application to the Democracy.
And, indeed, when we look at its heterogeneous elements
to-day, it is not easy to imagine any other cohesive power
which could hold them together. If General Hancock,
or any other leader, should signify his intention to abandon
it, every Democrat in the land would receive the news with
an ironical smile, and simply say that that leader knew a
trick or two. If such an intention were declared, and the
declaration believed, it is not unlikely that their hosts
would disband at once. When the Democracy, therefore,
speaks of a reform of the civil service, the meaning of
28 The Writings of [1880
that term, in the light of history and of the tendencies at
present prevailing, can be nothing else than that the
reform shall consist in putting out all the Republicans
and putting all Democrats in their places. What a reform
that would be! How the North and South would shake
hands over the bloody chasm filled with such good things !
What a host of men would be marching upon the capital
from all quarters of the compass, each one feeling that he
is born to serve the public, and that the Government
cannot get on without him ! It is said that at the present
moment, when the Democracy feels sanguine of success,
as it always does, the most popular work of literature with
Democrats, even with those who never read a book before,
is the "Blue Book," being the register of offices under the
Government, with salaries attached, each active Democrat
selecting his, and many the same.
Now let us see what that sort of Democratic reform in
the civil service really means and what its effect would be.
Look at the present condition of the service. I have
already admitted that the reform of it has not gone so far
as was intended and was desirable, but I may say also
that more has been accomplished than is generally known
and believed. I repeat, it is an almost universally
acknowledged fact that at present the public business is,
on the whole, well and honestly conducted in the Govern
ment offices. The revenues are collected with remarkable
fidelity, and never in the history of the country has the
loss in their collection been as small as now. In some of
its branches it has almost entirely disappeared. The
postal service is acknowledged to be more than ever ably,
honestly and efficiently done. Even in those branches
of the public service which more than others have almost
from the beginning of the Government borne the reputa
tion of being inefficient and corrupt, such as the land and
especially the Indian service, cases of peculation and
Carl Schurz 29
roguery have become comparatively rare, and the general
inefficiency of officers is very much improved ; and I speak
of this with assurance, for the reason that I am conversant
with the details. How has this been brought about?
In the first place, officers of all grades were made to
understand that dishonesty of whatever kind or degree
would under no circumstances be tolerated. Officers
guilty of corrupt practices, whenever their guilt was shown
with sufficient clearness, have been exposed and ejected
from their places without hesitation. Every man in the
service understanding this, it may be said that if persons
with thieving propensities were left or put in place, they
did in most cases not dare to steal. Secondly, the number
of removals made by this Administration has been com
paratively small. Not only clerks in the Departments,
but officers, appointed for a term of years, were generally
left in their places as long as they showed the necessary
degree of ability and efficiency in the discharge of their
duties. In this way the service retained a very valuable
stock of official experience which could not but tell
in its general efficiency, while at the same time public
servants were imbued with a feeling that the best way
to secure themselves in place was to perform their duties
according to the best standard. Thirdly, in appointing
new men care was taken to select such as would presumably
be capable to perform the tasks assigned to them. In
some Departments, and in a number of the larger govern
ment institutions in the country, systems of examinations
were introduced, which deterred at once the entirely
incapable from urging themselves or being urged for
official position, while they furnished also a good measure
of the capacity of the applicants. This system of exami
nation may not in all cases furnish an absolutely reliable
test, but it has proved to be an infinitely better test than
mere recommendation from political favor. It has not
30 The Writings of
been extended as far as it should be, but a good beginning
has been made, capable of large extension and develop
ment. Fourthly, the practice of making promotions
from lower to higher places for good official services
rendered, not only in the Departments, but also in some
branches of the service outside of them, has been carried
out to a much greater extent than is generally known;
thus furnishing another stimulus to the zeal of the public
servants. I repeat that mistakes in appointments have
undoubtedly occurred, some of a more or less conspicuous
kind, and that the principles of a thorough reform have
not been as universally applied as they should have been.
Great cries have been raised about instances in which
those principles appear to have been disregarded; but
under the old regular spoils system such instances were
the rule, compliance with which would not have been
criticized at all; and the very cries that are now raised
with regard to them in our case prove that at present they
are the exception. The very kind of criticism applied
to the Administration shows that things have grown better.
In spite of the imperfections of the methods followed, the
result has been that the public business is recognized to
be conducted now in a more business-like manner than
before, and that the efficiency of the service has been
lifted up to a much higher standard.
Now substitute for this the Democratic reform, making
a clean sweep according to the old spoils system, and what
will you have? Hundreds of thousands of politicians,
great and small, but all hungry, rushing for seventy or
eighty thousand places, backed and pressed by every Dem
ocratic Congressman and every Democratic committee
in the land. This impetuous rush must be satisfied as
rapidly as possible, for they want to make the best of
their time, and in this case, as well as others, time is
money. It is useless to disguise it; the masses of office-
i88o] Carl Schurz 31
seekers, starved for twenty years, will not be turned back
as long as there is a mouthful on the table. Seventy or
eighty thousand officers selected at random from that
multitude of ravenous applicants will be put into places
held now mostly by men of tried capacity and experience.
They must be taken at random, for it is impossible to fill
so large a number of places, in so short a time as the furious
demand will permit, in any other way. Need I tell any
sensible man what the effect upon the conduct of the
public business will be? It will be the disorganization
of the whole administrative machinery of the Govern
ment at one fell blow; it will be the sudden substitution
of raw hands for skilled and tried public servants; the
substitution of the eager desire to make out of public
affairs as much as can be made in the shortest possible
time, for official training, experience and sense of responsi
bility. It will be a removal for some time at least of
those carefully devised guards which are now placed over
the public money and its use; it will in one word be the
sudden distribution of so many thousand places of trust,
responsibility and power, now well filled, in the true sense
of the word as spoils among the hosts of the victorious
party.
It is useless to say that the Democratic party contains
a sufficient number of men of ability and integrity to fill
all those places. No doubt it does. But it is absolutely
impossible for those who have the appointing power, even
if they were ever so well disposed, to make careful selec
tions for so many thousand places in a short time, espe
cially considering the fact that usually the least worthy
aspirants are among the most clamorous and the most
skillful in securing the strongest political indorsements.
Need I tell the taxpayers what such an experiment will
cost? Suppose, after a success of the Democratic party
in a Presidential election, all the offices, high and low, in
32 The Writings of [1880
all the banks and savings institutions of the country, were
to be filled suddenly with Democratic politicians upon the
recommendation of Democratic Congressmen and cam
paign committees, what would the stockholders and the
depositors think of the safety of their money? And yet
the interests involved in the banks are certainly by
no means greater than the interests involved in the con
duct of the great Government of the United States. I
do not think this is putting the case too strongly, and I
invite the business men of the country and the taxpayers
generally to consider it well before they cast their votes.
I am willing to assume that in all these respects General
Hancock entertains the best possible intentions, and even
that he may form for himself a plan of action intended to
obviate these difficulties and disasters. He may possibly
tell you so, and mean what he says. Yet is it not obvious
that, having no experience whatever in political life, he
will be completely at the mercy of wind and waves, and
that there will be a power of wind in the Democratic
victors clamoring for the spoils strong enough to upset
the ingenuity of the firmest and most skilled politician
in his party? No, let nobody indulge in any delusion
about it; a Democratk victory means that the victors
will take the spoils at once; and this means the complete
destruction for a time of the whole administrative ma
chinery of the Government, with all its checks and guards,
and the people will have to foot the bills for the carnival.
This will be a reform of the civil service to make the ears
of the taxpayers tingle.
No prudent citizen can fail to be repelled by such
prospects unless equally great or greater dangers threaten
from the other side. Let us look at that other side now.
I am certainly not one of those who would assert that the
Republican party has been without fault. I have been
one of its most unsparing critics, and have been unsparingly
i88o] Carl Schurz 33
criticized myself by thoroughgoing partisans in return.
I shall always claim for myself freedom of opinion and
speech in that respect. The Republican party has un
doubtedly made a great many mistakes. I will not go
back to the period of reconstruction and an absolved
Southern policy, because that lies far behind us, and is
not an issue in this campaign. Its Constitutional results
have become settlements, accepted by both sides — in
profession at least, and the policy of force after the
admission of the late rebel States has under this Adminis
tration yielded to a scrupulous rule of Constitutional
principles. Neither would I deny that, with regard to
the question of the public debt at one time and to the
currency question for a more extended period, there was
in the Republican party an antagonism of opinions, a
contest of conflicting ends. We have had Republican
advocates of the payment of the public debt in green
backs; we have had Republican inflationists, and the
discussions inside of the Republican party were for some
time heated and bitter. Thus for a season the party
seemed to stumble along with an uncertain gait, but it
has always had an unerring instinct which in the end
made it turn right side up; and then it kept right side up.
When in 1869 the Republican majority in Congress
declared for the payment of the public debt, principal
and interest, in coin, there was the end once and forever
of the repudiation movement, open and disguised, in the
Republican party. When in 1875 the Republican major
ity in Congress passed the resumption act, there was the
end, once and forever, of the unredeemable paper-money
business in the Republican party. Those who remained
repudiationists or fiat-money men did not remain Repub
licans, at least not leaders of the party. They tried their
luck for some time inside of it; then they left it, and
became independent Greenbackers, and finally most of
VOL. IV. — 3
34 The Writings of [1880
them landed in the Democratic party, as the Democratic
Greenbackers, who for a time became independents,
mostly went back there. General Weaver and his fol
lowers are still in the intermediate state, but will no doubt
finally materialize as sound Democrats.
But while the Democratic party has been attracting
such elements, the Republican party has been either
converting them to sound principles or ejecting them until
they almost wholly disappeared among its component
parts. Thus it has become emphatically the protector
of the national faith and the party of sound money. I
have no doubt that the disagreements still existing upon
financial subjects of minor importance in the Republican
party will be solved in the same way after mature dis
cussion. This tendency in the Republican party has
been owing to some very characteristic causes. It has
not only a predominance of good sense and a thoughtful
desire to be right and an endeavor to do that which was
best for the general interests of the people, but it was also
the traditional feeling grown out of the loyal attitude of the
Republican party during the civil war in support of the
Union and the preservation of the Republic — the feel
ing of solemn duty that all the obligations contracted
for so sacred a purpose must be and remain sacred and
inviolable. Therefore, it was that the idea of repudiation
never could obtain a permanent foothold among Republi
cans, whatever the vacillations of individual minds during
a limited period may have been. And the abhorrence
of repudiation in our discussions of the financial problem
inspired the most powerful arguments that brought the
Republican masses to a sound appreciation of the money
question.
In this way the Republican party, steadily progressing
in an enlightened perception of the principles of sound
finance, has become the reliable sound-money party of the
Carl Schurz 35
country, to which, as parties now are, the solution of new
financial problems can alone be safely trusted. And how
magnificently do the effects of the results already achieved
appear in the revival of our business prosperity !
It may be said that our financial policy has not wholly
originated that prosperity. True, but it has most power
fully aided it by giving us that confidence which is impos
sible without stable money values and a sound currency
system. And what prudent man would now risk these
great results by turning over our financial policy to the
hands of a party which, as I have shown, is the refuge of
all destructive elements threatening new uncertainty and
confusion?
Indeed, not only in the traditions and good sense of
the Republican party do you find the best security there
is at present for the sanctity of our national faith as well
as a successful management of the financial policy; you
find equal security in the known opinions and principles
of its candidate, James A. Garfield. His convictions on
these subjects have not found their first and best pro
clamation in the platform of his party or in his letter of
acceptance. His record of nearly twenty years of Con
gressional service is not a blank on the great questions of
the times, like that of his opponent. There is not a phase
of the question of our national obligations ; there is not a
point of financial policy, from the first day that the subject
was considered in Congress since he became a member of
that body to the present hour, that he has not discussed
with an ability and strength, a lucidity of argument,
amplitude of knowledge and firmness of conviction,
placing him in the first rank of the defenders of sound
principles.
If you want to study the reasons why the public faith
should be inviolably maintained, why an irredeemable
paper currency is, and always has been, a curse to all the
36 The Writings of [1880
economic interests of this and all other countries, why
confidence can be restored and maintained, why business
can obtain a healthy development, why foreign commerce
can be most profitably conducted only with a money
system of stable and intrinsic value, you will find in the
speeches of James A. Garfield upon this subject the most
instructive and convincing information. You will find
there opinions not suddenly made up to order to suit an
opportunity and the necessities of a candidate in an elec
tion, but the convictions of a lifetime, carefully matured
by conscientious research and large inquiry, and main
tained with powerful reason, before they had become
generally popular. You find there a teacher, statesman
and a leader in a great movement, with principles so
firmly grounded in his mind, as well as his conscience, that
he would uphold them even were they not supported by
a powerful party at his back. There is double assurance,
therefore, in the traditions and acts of the party and in
the character of the leader at its head.
As to the civil service, I have stated to you what in
my opinion its condition is to-day, and that opinion
accords, I think, with that of every fair-minded observer.
As to what it will become in case of a Republican victory,
I shall not predict the millennium, neither from the know
ledge I have of the obstacles in the way of a permanent
reform on sound principles, nor from the party platform,
nor from the last utterance of the candidate. One thing,
however, may be taken for certain: the administrative
machinery of the government will not be suddenly taken
to pieces and disorganized, to be recomposed of raw
material. In so far as it has shown itself honest and
efficient, it will be preserved in its integrity and efficiency,
and upon the good foundation laid there is reason for
assurance that it will be developed to greater perfection.
The business interests of the country, the taxpayers
i»8o] Carl Schurz 37
generally, whose first desire it must be to see the public
business of the Government administered in an honest and
intelligent way, will, therefore, have no reason to fear
sudden and fitful revulsions in the organization of the
administrative machinery, as the distribution of the spoils
among the victors after Democratic success would inevi
tably be. This is the least advantage we may expect with
certainty; but that advantage is so great that no man of
sense will fail to appreciate it. Of the greater, more
thoroughgoing and permanent reforms which I have long
considered not only necessary but also practicable, and
which have been attempted and in part carried out, it
may be said that so far their advocates have made them
selves heard only on the Republican side, and that at
present there appears to be no other organization of power
in which they can be worked for with any hope of success.
That this work will not be given up, is certain, while, on
the Democratic side, we have no reason to look for any
thing else than a complete relapse into those barbarous
methods which in former times have proved so demoraliz
ing as well as expensive.
And now I appeal to the conservative citizens of the
Republic, to you who desire the public faith sacredly
maintained, where will you go? Can you, in view of
present circumstances, conscientiously go to the Demo
cratic party? You will indeed find there not a few men
who think as you do ; but with them, you will find closely
allied in party interest all those elements to whom our
national obligations are the football of momentary
advantage. You will find on that side every State that
has repudiated or speaks of repudiating its public debt;
you will find there all those who decried the public creditor
as the public enemy, and whom no loyal tradition and
impulse attaches to the national honor. You will find
there a party, inside of which the public faith has still to
38 The Writings of [1880
fight a battle with its enemies, without any certainty of
its issue. Is that your place? Or will you go to the
Republican side, where the loyal maintenance of our
public faith has become a fundamental principle, univer
sally adhered to with unswerving fidelity, in spite of the
gusts of adverse public sentiment in former days? And
you who desire to preserve the fruits of the success gained
in the abolition of the curse of an irredeemable paper
money and the reestablishment of specie payments,
where will you go? Will you go to the Democratic party,
where again you will find some who think as you do, and
yet with them as a powerful and perhaps the most
numerous component part of the organization, wielding
commanding influence in a great many of the States
subject to its control, the great mass of the inflationists
and fiat-money men who were gathered under the Demo
cratic banner by a seemingly irresistible power of attrac
tion, and furnished many of the acknowledged leaders
of that organization, and who even now, when the pros
perity of the country has been so magnificently aided by
a sound financial policy, would be ready to subvert it all
and throw the country back into the wild confusion of the
fiat-money madness? Will you, business men, farmers,
manufacturers, merchants of the country, find the safety
of your interests there? Will you help a party to power,
inside of which, between its component elements, the
battle of a sound-money system and an irredeemable
paper currency is still pending, and will you trust the
earnings of the poor as well as the fortunes of the wealthy
to the uncertainties of its issue? Or will you go to the
Republican side, where great victories for the cause of
good money have been achieved; where sound sense and
patriotism have won every fight so far decided, and where
we may with certainty look for the same sound sense and
patriotism to solve the problems not yet disposed of?
Carl Schurz 39
And you who desire the administrative business of the
Government performed in a business-like way by honest
and capable public servants, where will you go? Will
you go to the Democratic party, which has no other reform
idea than an eager desire to take the whole administrative
machinery of the Government suddenly to pieces, and to
fill it as rapidly as possible with politicians demanding
offices as spoils? Or will you go to the Republican side,
where you have the assurance of a civil service which,
in spite of shortcomings and mistakes, has already on the
whole proved itself capable to transact your business
honestly and efficiently, and where you find all those
elements that are faithfully and energetically working
for a more thorough and permanent reform?
I might go on with the catalogue to show you where the
path of safety lies; but it is enough. Your own State of
Indiana furnishes you at this moment a most instructive
illustration. Look at the contending forces here. On the
one hand, a man put forward by the Democrats as their
candidate for the governorship, one of the leaders of the
wildest inflation movement, one of the most vociferous
advocates of the repeal of the resumption act, the success
ful execution of which has conferred upon the American
people such inestimable blessings.
Where would our prosperity be had he and his followers
prevailed? And now you find him the representative
man of the Democratic party, still advocating his wild
doctrines, and hoping for their triumph, which would be
the ruin of your prosperity. You are certainly mindful
of the fact that the wise and patriotic men among you,
and I am glad to say that they were a majority of your
voters, made an effort to do away with the scandals of
fraudulent voting, arising from the absence of a good
registration law and the seductive opportunities furnished
by your October elections. You know how a majority
40 The Writings of
of your citizens with the applause of all fair-minded men
in the country, voted and carried that reform at an elec
tion held for the ratification of your constitutional amend
ments; you know how by Democratic judges that decision
of the majority was set aside upon reasons which made
the whole legal profession stare the country over. Is that
the party which, as citizens of Indiana, mindful of the
welfare and the good name of this State, you will support?
Now look to the other side. Your Republican candi
date for the governorship, one of your purest, best in
formed and most useful and patriotic men who on every
question of public interest stands on the side of the honor
of the country and the welfare of its citizens ; whom even
the voice of slander cannot reach, and to whose hands his
very opponents would without hesitation commit their
interests. That is the illustration Indiana gives of the
character of our national contest.
What is there then on the Democratic side which could
seduce you from the path of safety ? Is it the nomination
for the Presidency of a soldier who during the war did
brave deeds and deserved well of the country? Is it a
sense of gratitude for those brave deeds that should make
you elevate the soldier to the place in which a statesman
is wanted? Gratitude to those who on the field of battle
bared their breasts to the enemies of the country is a
sentiment of which I shall not slightingly speak; it is a
noble sentiment ; but is the Presidency of the United States
a mere bauble that should be given as a reward for things
done on a field of action wholly different?
Is the Presidency like a presentation sword, or a gift
horse, or a donation of money, or a country house, given
to a victorious soldier to please him? If so, then simple
justice would compel us to look for the most meritorious
of our soldiers and reward them in the order of their
merit ; and, brave and skillful as General Hancock has been,
Carl Schurz 41
there are others who have claims of a still higher order.
Then, General Grant having already been President, we
should reward General Sherman and Lieutenant- General
Sheridan first before we come to the major-general
nominated by the Democratic party. Certainly let us
be grateful; but let us not degrade the highest and
most responsible trust of the Republic to the level of a
mere gift of gratitude. Let military heroes be lifted up
to the highest rank in the service which belongs to the
soldier. Let them be rewarded with the esteem of their
countrymen; and, if need be, let wealth and luxury be
showered upon them to brighten that life which they
were ready to sacrifice for their country.
But let it never be forgotten that the Presidency is a
trust that is due to no man ; that nobody has ever earned
it as a thing belonging to him, and that it should not be
bestowed but for services to be rendered in the way of
patriotic and enlightened statesmanship.
But, above all things, the Presidency should never be
pointed out as the attainable goal of ambition to the pro
fessional soldier. I certainly do not mean to depreciate
the high character of the regular army. But I cannot
refrain from saying that in a republic like ours great care
should be taken not to demoralize it by instilling political
ambition into the minds of its officers. The army is there
to obey the orders of the civil power under the law as it
stands, without looking to the right or to the left. And
it will be an evil day for this Republic when we inspire
the generals of our Army with the ambition to secure the
highest power by paving their way to it with political
pronunciamentos. I will not impute to General Hancock
any such design. He may have meant ever so well when
he issued General Order No. 40, which is now held up by
a political party as his principal title to the Presidency.
But you once establish such a precedent, and who knows
42 The Writings of
how long it will be before you hear of other general orders
issued for purposes somewhat similar to those for which
they are now issued in Mexico? I am for the subordina
tion of the military to the civil power. And therefore I
am for making Congressman Garfield President, and for
letting General Hancock remain what he is, a general,
always ready to draw the soldier's sword at the lawful
command of the civil power.
What have we, on the other hand, in the Republican
candidate: his youth was that of a poor boy. He lived
by his daily labor. He rose up from that estate gradually
by his own effort, taking with him the experience of
poverty and hard work and a living sympathy with the
poor and hard-working man. He cultivated his mind by
diligent study and he stored it with useful knowledge.
From a learner he became a teacher. When the Republic
called her sons to her defence he joined the army and
achieved distinction in active service as one of the brave
on the battlefield. He was called into the great council
of the Nation, and has sat there for nearly twenty years.
No great question was discussed without his contributing
the store of his knowledge to the fund of information
necessary for wise decision. His speeches have ranked
not only among the most eloquent, but among the most
instructive and useful. Scarcely a single great measure
of legislation was passed during that long period without
the imprint of his mind. No man in Congress has devoted
more thorough inquiry to a larger number of important
subjects and formed upon them opinions more matured
and valuable. He was not as great a soldier as his com
petitor for the Presidency, but he has made himself, and
is universally recognized as, what a President ought to be,
a statesman. He understands all phases of life, from the
lowest to the highest, for he has lived through them. He
understands the great problems of politics, for he has
Carl Schurz 43
studied them and actively participated in their discussion
and solution. Few men in this country would enter the
Presidential office with its great duties and responsibilities
better or even as well equipped with knowledge and
experience. He need only be true to his record in order
to become a wise, safe and successful President. If the
people elect him it will be only because his services ren
dered in the past are just of that nature which will give
assurance of his ability to render greater service in the
future. The country wants a statesman of ability,
knowledge, experience and principle at the head of affairs.
His conduct as a legislator gives ample guarantee of great
promise in all these things.
In a few months you will have to make your choice.
I know that when a party has been so long in power as the
Republican party, many citizens may be moved by a desire
for a change. In not a few cases it may be a desire for the
sake of a change. While the impulse is natural, it should
not be followed without calm discrimination. Prudent
men will never fail to consider whether the only change
possible bids fair to be a change for the better. It is true
that parties are apt to degenerate by the long possession
of power. The Republican party cannot expect to escape
the common lot of humanity ; but no candid observer will
deny that within a late period the Republican party has
shown signs rather of improvement than deterioration;
and that it possesses the best share of the intelligence,
virtue and patriotism of the country. In matters of most
essential moment to the public welfare it can be safely
better counted upon for efficient and faithful service, while
its opponent opens only a prospect of uncertainty and
confusion.
The Democracy may in the course of time gain the
confidence of the people; but that should be only when
the repudiationists and the advocates of unsound money
44 The Writings of
have ceased to be in its ranks so powerful and influential
an element as seriously to threaten the great economic
interests of the country ; when by energetic and successful
action in protecting the rights of the voter whether white
or black, whether Republican or Democratic in all parts
of the country, and by the suppression of fraud at the
ballot-box through a healthy and irresistible power of
public opinion within itself, it will have won the right to
appear in its platforms as the protector of the freedom
and purity of elections, and when it will find it no longer
necessary to discard the ablest of its statesmen and to put
a general of the Army, who has never been anything but
a soldier, in nomination for the Presidency, to make for
itself a certificate of loyalty to the settlements of the great
conflict of the past.
And for all these reasons, in my opinion, the interests
of the Republic demand the election of James A. Garfield
to the Presidency of the United States.
FROM JAMES A. GARFIELD
MENTOR, O., July 22, 1880.
My dear Schurz: Yours of the 2Oth inst. from Indianapolis
came duly to hand — and was read with interest. I thank you
for your frank and faithful criticism ; and with equal frankness
let me say that I do not think my letter of acceptance is a
surrender of any essential point gained by the present Ad
ministration. On the subject of finance, I did not dream that
any one could doubt my attitude, for on every phase of the sub
ject I have stood on the skirmish line against all forms of soft
money and bastard silver fallacy. The only fear my friends
have had was that I should be too radical. So good and sound
a man as Senator Hoar wrote me urging that I avoid sug
gestions which would create apprehensions of violent change.
The key to sound money is, I think, contained in my phrase,
Carl Schurz 45
"to maintain the equality of all our dollars. " Can any sound-
money man suggest a more radical creed? Remember I was
not writing an inaugural message, nor an exhaustive essay on
finance ; but a brief campaign summary of Republican doctrine.
On the subject of civil service, there is more room for
difference of judgment, because there are real differences of
opinion among Republicans. I think I may say, without
immodesty, that no member of Congress has said or done more
in behalf of real reform in that service than I have. But I
have been saying, for several years past, that the pressure of
public opinion should be brought to bear upon Congress,
rather than upon the President, to make any reform in that
direction effective. If the President will sketch the outline of
a bill fixing a tenure of office for all minor offices, and prescrib
ing the grounds on which removals are to be made, and in a
message urge its passage, he will concentrate the weight of
public opinion upon Congress, and some action will at last
be compelled. So long as he makes the fight with Congress a
concrete one, involving the personality of each appointee,
Congress, or rather the Senate will beat him half the time or
more. If he makes it a fight of general principles with no
personality involved in the contest, he can win. In short, in
my letter of acceptance, I have sought to shift the battle
ground from the person of the appointee to the principles on
which the office shall be held. Of course, I may be in error;
but I think I am right. If any one thinks I have surrendered
to Congressional dictation, other than by legislation, such a one
will find himself greatly mistaken if the trial comes. I shall
be sorry if the President is grieved at the clause of my letter
to which you refer. But I have never doubted that one
portion of his order no. I was a mistake, and was an invasion
of the proper rights of those who hold Federal offices to take
part in the nomination of candidates to office. In a district
like mine where nomination is equivalent to election, the right
to participate in the proceedings of a caucus is more important
than the right to vote. The popular understanding of the
order has made the holding of a local Federal office a badge of
political disability. This should not be. If the order had been
46 The Writings of
confined to the great centers, like New York, where office
holders from all quarters were concentrated, and were used to
control local caucuses in which they had had no right to par
ticipate, it would have met general approval. It was that
phase of the case I sought to touch in my letter. I thought
my position was not only right in itself, but would remove the
only real objection to the order, and at the same time advance
the cause of civil service reform.
Here, as on the financial questions, I have not attempted to
go into details; but have left myself free to propose such a
plan as will embody the necessary elements of a permanent and
effective reform. I recognize the strength which the Adminis
tration has given to the party by its singularly fine record.
They have had my cordial support — in the midst of some
contradiction — and I have no purpose to let the party down
from the high standard of recent work. I do not think Horace
White is justified in treating my letter as a surrender to the
machine. He ought to remember that all the pressure and
pride of my public life are behind me to project into future
action what I have so long advocated; and that I have dis
tinctly referred to my public record for my opinions. If you
will read an article which I wrote for the Atlantic Monthly
for July, 1877, you will see how fully I discuss the subject of
civil service. Some of these gentlemen treat my letter as
though I had never spoken before. You can do much to
prevent their taking this view of it, and, as you know me better
than they, I shall hope for your assistance.
I have read your Indianapolis speech with great satisfaction.
You do it great wrong when you speak of it as a poor one. It
has the clear and incisive spirit which characterizes all your
utterances, and its repetition at the leading centers of political
life will do great good. I have made no terms of concession
with the New York wing; but have trusted to time and the
pressure of the campaign. My freedom is in no way crippled,
beyond the committals fairly made in the letter of acceptance ;
and I do not think that is inconsistent with my past record.
Certainly I did not intend it should be. I return White's
letter, as you request. I hope you will write me freely and
Carl Schurz 47
often — and, especially, let me know what the outlook is on the
Pacific coast.
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22, 1880.
My dear Garfield: Yesterday I received your telegram
asking me to go to Cleveland to speak. I shall certainly do
so with pleasure and to-day telegraphed to Mr. Chas. O.
Evarts, the secretary of the Campaign Committee, to that
effect.
Now a word on the campaign as it has developed itself
during the last two months. Since my return from the
West I have received some strong impressions in that
respect from numerous letters and conversations. They
were most pointedly summed up in a few words spoken
by a New York business man whom I met here yesterday.
He is a man of standing and influence in his circle, has
always voted the Republican ticket when voting at all
and may be taken as a fair representative of a large class.
"At first, " he said, "it looked as if the election of General
Garfield would give us another sober, quiet, clean, business
like Administration, uncontrolled by extreme partisan
influences, like the present Administration. But for
several weeks the old talk and cries of sectional warfare
and bloody shirt, etc., have been uppermost again, as is
said, with the full approval of Mr. Garfield. Now if that,
as well as the old patronage business, is to be the spirit
and character of Mr. Garfield's Administration, there are
a great many of us who think we might as well try a
change, for four years of sectional quarrel may and prob
ably will have a disturbing effect upon the business affairs
of the country, and unsettle everything. " I find similar
apprehensions expressed in many letters I receive, par
ticularly also from Germans. Of course it is unjust to
48 The Writings of [1880
hold you responsible for everything that is said on the
stump. But somehow or other the impression seems to
have got around that the tone of the campaign was de
termined upon at your conference in New York as the
result of an agreement or capitulation concluded between
yourself and the elements represented there. I am free to
say that I always considered your trip to New York a
mistake, for it was certain that under existing circum
stances you could not make it without giving color to
rumors of concession, surrender, promises etc., impairing
the strength of your legislative record. And I may add,
that if, as the newspapers state, you go to the meeting at
Warren, the result will be just as injurious with a large
class of voters, besides exposing you to the chance of
listening to expressions of condescension like those at the
Academy of Music in New York, very little short of
contempt and insult. I enclose a couple of editorials from
the Evening Post and the N. Y. Herald which it is worth
your while to read. They may be somewhat overdrawn
in their coloring, but they do give expression to a current
of thought running through the heads of a large number of
people whose votes we need. That the effect of that sort
of a campaign is virtually as stated by these papers is
abundantly proven by the Maine election. There we had
the "sectional" music by the whole orchestra and in
endless variations. I will not say that it caused the
Republican defeat, but it proved entirely ineffectual in
preventing it, while a quiet, conservative, persuasive tone
of discussion, in the line of your anti-sectional and reform
utterances in Congress, might have won converts and so
prevented the disaster.
These things are not pleasant to contemplate, but as
your friend I consider it my duty to point out to you
dangers you have to confront, and which you ought to see
and appreciate in time. I should like to have a talk with
i88o] Carl Schurz 49
you, but that is probably not an easy thing to arrange,
and, perhaps for some reasons not even desirable. But I
want you to know that upon all these things you can
depend upon me to tell you exactly what I think.
By the way, when I was in Indiana, the Committee
showed a great desire to have me speak at some places
before the October election. I have not heard from them
since my return. I might visit two or three important
places in Indiana in connection with my appointment at
Cleveland. Webb Hayes writes me that they want a
speech from me very much at Fremont. I thought, as you
are probably better informed about the necessities of the
campaign in that region, you might indicate to the re
spective committees what to do. I ought to be back
here by the 6th or yth of October on account of public
business.
FROM JAMES A. GARFIELD
MENTOR, Oct. 15, 1880.
My dear Schurz : At last we have got down to the bottom
of our news-bag — on the election of last Tuesday, and find
the extent of the victory. It is clear to me that the chief
force which produced the result was the fear of patriotic
business men that they could not safely entrust the country
and its great material interests in the hands of a party so
full of dangerous and reactionary tendencies as the present
Democracy.
The drift of the debate during the last three weeks has been
very markedly in the business direction. Our friends in Cleve
land were deeply impressed by your speech as were also the
people of Toledo. Your work was felt and appreciated every
where. I hope you will be able to strike some more blows, at
the nerve centers, between now and November. I hear that
there is some antagonism between the German Republican
leaders in New York City, which it is thought you might do
VOL. IV. — 4
50 The Writings of
much to allay. Of this you know better than I. I shall be
glad to know how the field looks to you now. With thanks
for your very effective work, and with kind regards.
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3, 1880.
My dear Garfield : I congratulate you and the country
most sincerely on your success. Quod felix faustumque
sit. Your real troubles will now begin. But, as I have
frequently taken occasion to say during the campaign,
President James A. Garfield will have only to act accord
ing to the teachings of Member of Congress Garfield to
give this country one of the most wholesome Administra
tions it ever had. Accept my cordial wishes.
TO JOHN D. LONG'
WASHINGTON, D. C., December 9, 1880.
I have read a full report of the speeches delivered on the
resolutions passed at a meeting over which you presided,
held in Boston, on the 3d of December, for the purpose of
expressing sympathy with the Poncas.
That meeting was held in the interest of justice. It
demanded justice for that Indian tribe. But it seems
that not one of the speakers remembered that measure of
justice which is due to the officers of the Government
whose names were connected with that deplorable affair.
Permit me to demand justice for them also. To this end
it is necessary to pass once more in rapid review the
salient points of the case. The old Ponca reserve in
southeastern Dakota, a tract of 96,000 acres, was con
firmed to that tribe by various treaties. In 1868 a treaty
1 Governor of Mass. An open letter on the removal of the Poncas.
Carl Schurz 51
was concluded with the Sioux by which a reservation was
granted to them, including the tract which formerly had
by treaty been confirmed to the Poncas. The Sioux treaty
of 1868 was ratified in the usual way and became the law
of the land. The Poncas, however, continued to occupy
the ceded tract. They and the Sioux had been hereditary
enemies, and the former had suffered much from the hostile
incursions of the latter. After the Ponca reserve had
been granted to the Sioux these incursions became more
frequent and harassing, so much so that the Poncas found
themselves forced to think of removal to some safe loca
tion. Several times they expressed a wish to be taken to
the Omaha reservation where they might live in security.
But, although they had initiated an agreement with the
Omahas to that effect, the arrangement was for some
reason not accomplished. In 1874 and 1875 the Commis
sioner of Indian Affairs recommended the removal of
the Poncas to the Omaha reserve and their permanent
location thereon. These recommendations, however,
were not acted upon by Congress. On the 23d of Septem
ber, 1875, a petition was signed by the chiefs and headmen
of the Poncas requesting that they be allowed to remove
to the Indian Territory and to send a delegation there to
select a new home. This petition was forwarded to the
Indian Office. It was subsequently asserted, by members
of the Ponca tribe, that when signing the petition they
had not understood it to contain a request to be removed
to the Indian Territory; but they had in their minds a
removal to the Omaha reservation and the sending of some
of their chiefs and headmen to the Indian Territory to see
whether they could find a suitable location there. How
ever that may be, they expressed the desire to remove
from their lands in Dakota.
Thereupon the Indian Appropriation Act of August
25, 1876, appropriated "twenty-five thousand dollars
52 The Writings of [1880
for the removal of the Poncas to the Indian Territory,
and providing them a home therein, with the consent of
said band." The Act of March 3, 1877, appropriated
fifteen thousand dollars "in addition to that heretofore
appropriated for the removal and permanent location of
the Poncas in the Indian Territory." At the same time
Congress, by Act of March 3, 1877, provided for the
removal of the Sioux to the Missouri river. As the Ponca
reserve had, by the treaty of 1868, been formally ceded to
the Sioux, the execution of the provision of law with
regard to the Sioux, without the execution of the provision
of law with regard to the Poncas, would have brought the
old enemies together upon the same ground, and would
have threatened serious consequences to the Poncas as
the weaker party. It is true that in 1875 a kind of
treaty of peace had been made between the Poncas and
one band of the Sioux which it is said had been observed
by that band; but subsequently some of the Poncas had
been killed by Sioux belonging to another band. These
circumstances, it appears, induced the Indian Office to
send an inspector, Mr. Kemble, to the Ponca reserve early
in January, 1877, for the purpose of obtaining their con
sent to the proposed removal. They at first disclaimed
any desire to remove, but finally agreed to send a delega
tion to the Indian Territory for the purpose of selecting a
suitable location for their tribe, and that then their chiefs
be permitted to visit Washington to negotiate for the
surrender of their lands in Dakota. They were told by
Inspector Kemble that the expense of sending a party to
the Indian Territory and a delegation to Washington
could not be incurred until they had consented to relin
quish their Dakota lands. Inspector Kemble reported to
the Indian Office that he had obtained that consent at
a council held with the Poncas on the 27th of January,
1877, and that such consent was given with the under-
Carl Schurz 53
standing that the final details of the transaction should be
completed at Washington after the selection of lands in
the Indian Territory had been made. He forwarded,
also, the minutes of that council, from which it appeared
that the consent he claimed to have been given consisted
in speeches made by the chiefs, but not in a formal re-
linquishment on paper with their signatures. However,
Inspector Kemble reported it as a conclusive consent.
A delegation of Ponca chiefs went with him to the Indian
Territory where they had hoped to find a home among the
Osages, whom they believed to be similar to them in
language and habits. But when the delegation arrived
at the Osage agency the head chiefs as well as the agent
were absent; the Ponca delegates were inhospitably
received and poorly provided for, and the weather being
inclement, were detained in uncomfortable quarters for
several days. Most of the delegates became disheartened
at the outset and refused to consider other desirable
locations which were shown them, and on reaching Arkan
sas City eight of them left in the night without the know
ledge of the inspector, and started on foot for the Ponca
agency, which they reached, after a tedious and difficult
journey, in forty days. The other two, with the inspector,
their agent and the Rev. S. D. Hinman, continued their
inspection and pronounced in favor of the northeast
quarter of the Quapaw reserve as a location for their tribe.
Thus the removal was initiated, and the preliminary
measures carried out, before the present Administration
came into power. Reports made to the Indian Office were
to the effect that on their return to their people the Ponca
chiefs found the tribe divided in sentiment, the opposition
to removal being constantly strengthened by the influence
of outside parties; that the jealousies and animosities
which had always prevailed among the different bands of
the tribe were so intensified by those differences of opinion
54 The Writings of
with regard to the removal, that violence was threatened
to any one who should attempt to leave the reservation;
that to protect the removal-party from the intimidating
tactics of their opponents forty-five soldiers were sent from
Fort Randall. But the influence adverse to the removal so
far prevailed that only 175 members of the tribe crossed
the Niobrara on the I7th of April, on their way to the
Indian Territory. After the departure of this party the
remaining five hundred and fifty Poncas, notwithstanding
strong opposition, were prevailed upon by the inspector
to go, and four companies of cavalry were sent for to
attend the removal ; but before the arrival of the troops,
all the Poncas, as was reported to the Indian Office by
their agent, had decided to go peaceably, and the soldiers
were recalled while on their march to the agency. On the
1 6th of May, 1877, all the Poncas were on their way.
Contrary to the express wish of the agent, but in accord
ance with previous orders, which the commanding officer
thought he could not disobey, the twenty-five soldiers
who had remained at the agency, after the departure of
the first party, accompanied the second as far as Colum
bus, Nebraska. The journey was continued under great
difficulties and hardships, occasioned by unprecedented
storms and floods. On their arrival in the Indian Terri
tory a majority of the Poncas were dissatisfied with the
location chosen for them by their two chiefs who had
remained with Inspector Kemble. That dissatisfaction
deterred the Indian Office from making provision for
their permanent settlement there. The Ponca chiefs
asked to be permitted to visit Washington, and in the
fall of 1877 they arrived in this city.
From this recital of facts, taken from the official rec
ords in this Department, it appears that all the legisla
tion which brought about the removal of the Poncas, and
the initiatory steps taken to this end, occurred before the
i88o] Carl Schurz 55
present Administration came into power; that the Indian
Office had first recommended their removal to the Omaha
reservation, upon which no action was taken, while
Congress did provide for their removal to the Indian
Territory. The removal itself, in pursuance of the law
quoted, was effected a very short time after I took charge
of my present position, when, I will frankly admit, I was
still compelled to give my whole attention to the formid
able task of acquainting myself with the vast and com
plicated machinery of the Interior Department. If at
some future day you, Governor, should be made Secretary
of the Interior, you will find what that means; and
although you may accomplish it in a shorter time than I
did, yet you will have to pass through some strange
experiences during the first six months. During that
period I had to confess myself as little conversant with
Indian affairs as many of those seem to be who are now
writing and speaking upon that subject. Under such
circumstances I had to leave the practical management
of the several bureaus, as to the business left over from
the former Administration, for a short time, without
much interference on my part, to the bureau chiefs whom
I had found in office. I believed them, and justly so, to
possess what I had not the advantage of, experience in
the current business. On the Ponca affair I thought it
best to accept the laws recently passed as the expressed
will of Congress and to take the judgment of the then
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Hon. J. Q. Smith, which
I have no doubt was conscientiously formed, as he was
a man of just and benevolent impulses. His opinions, as
I subsequently found, were largely based upon the reports
made to the Office by Inspector Kemble. As to the
measures taken by Mr. Kemble to obtain what he rep
resented as the consent of the Poncas to the relinquishment
of their lands and their removal to the Indian Territory, it
56 The Writings of [1880
may be said that he followed a course which unfortunately
had been frequently taken before him on many occasions.
Having been a man of military training, he may have
been rather inclined to summary methods ; moreover it is
probable that as the Ponca reserve had been ceded to the
Sioux by the treaty of 1868, and as Congress had provided
also that the Sioux should be removed to the Missouri
river, and the Sioux were the same year to occupy that
part of the country, the removal of the Poncas may have
appeared to Mr. Kemble a necessity, in order to prevent
a collision between them and the Sioux which would have
been highly detrimental to both. Besides he stood not
alone. In this opinion that the removal of the Poncas
was necessary, he had the concurrence of Bishop Hare of
the Episcopal Church, as expressed in dispatches to the
Indian Office. Had I then understood this matter and
Indian affairs generally as well as I do now, I should have
overcome the natural hesitancy of a man new in office to
take personal responsibilities.
The details of the case did not come clearly to my
knowledge until the Ponca chiefs arrived in Washington
and told their story. I concluded that they had suffered
great hardship in losing the reservation originally con
ferred upon them by treaty, after a so-called conse'nt
which appeared not to have been a free expression of
their will. They had also endured many disasters on their
way to the Indian Territory, and after their arrival there
were greatly afflicted by disease and lost a large number
of their people by death. Then the question of redress
presented itself. They requested permission to return to
Dakota. This request was denied, not without very
careful consideration. The Sioux had in the meantime
been removed to the Missouri river and occupied that
part of their reservation which included the Ponca lands.
To return the Poncas to those lands under such circum-
Carl Schurz 57
stances seemed a dangerous experiment, not only on their
account but, also, because the temper of the Sioux at that
period appeared still very critical, and it was believed
that the slightest irritation might lead to another out
break of that tribe, the most powerful of all the Indian
nations. Indeed, military officers predicted that another
and a larger Sioux war was threatening and that any
untoward occurrence might bring it about.
In the consultations had upon that subject the late
Mr. William Welsh, of Philadelphia, one of the sincerest,
warmest and also most experienced friends the Indians
ever had, took an active part; and with his concurrence
the conclusion was arrived at that under these difficult
circumstances the return of the Poncas to Dakota would
be too dangerous a venture, and that it would be best to
propose to them a selection of lands in the Indian Terri
tory, which they might choose themselves. This they
consented to do. Had we then proposed to Congress the
return of the Poncas and obtained authority and money
for that purpose, and a new Indian war had ensued, which
was not only possible, but, from the information we re
ceived from that quarter, appeared probable, the folly
of such a step would have been more seriously and more
generally condemned than all the wrongs done to the
Poncas are now.
The Poncas did select a new location in the Indian
Territory, at the Salt Fork of the Arkansas river, and in
July, 1878, they went to it. It is the tract of land they
now occupy. That land is among the very best in the
Indian Territory, with respect to agricultural and pas
toral pursuits; and since then they have been provided
with houses and schools, cattle, farming implements,
horses etc. While they suffered severely from disease
on the Quapaw reservation, and lost many of their people
by death, their health has constantly improved, and
58 The Writings of [1880
according to the latest reports received, the births among
them have exceeded the number of deaths during last
year.
In the meantime the state of things in the Sioux country
has been greatly changed for the better by careful manage
ment. The 13,000 Sioux who shortly after the removal
of the Poncas from Dakota had occupied the country on
and near their old reserve, selected new locations for
themselves farther west of the Missouri river. They
are in good condition now, but I am not by any means
certain whether the reappearance of the Poncas in their
vicinity might not induce some reckless young men among
them to resume their old quarrels, which were amusement
to them, but a very serious thing to the Poncas. But
another difficulty arose of a grave nature : the invasion of
the Indian Territory by white intruders striving to obtain
possession of certain lands in the Indian Territory held
for Indian settlement in that region, of which the present
Ponca reservation forms a part. With regard to this
difficulty I expressed, in my last report, the opinion that
the success of this invasion, introducing into the heart of
the Indian Territory a reckless, lawless, grasping element
of adventurers, sure to grow and spread rapidly after
once having gained a foothold, would bring upon the
Indian population of that Territory in its present condi
tion the most serious dangers. The lands coveted by the
invaders are held against the intrusion on the ground that
they are reserved for Indian settlement. It is important,
therefore, that the Indian settlements actually on such
lands should remain there at least while the Indian Terri
tory is in danger. To take away the existing Indian
settlements from those lands under such circumstances
would very much weaken the position of the Government
in defending them, and encourage the invasion. The
lands occupied by the Poncas belong to that region. If
i88o] Carl Schurz 59
the Poncas were now taken from those lands and returned
to Dakota, this very fact would undoubtedly make other
northern Indians, who have been taken to the Indian
Territory, restless to follow their example, such as the
northern Cheyennes, the Nez Perces and possibly even
the Pawnees. Unscrupulous white men, agents of the
invaders, would be quickly on hand to foment this ten
dency. An evacuation by the Indians, and possibly an
extensive one, of the very region which is held by the
Government against the intruders on the very ground
that it is reserved for Indian settlement, would be the
consequence, and that just at the moment when the
Government has the struggle for the integrity of the In
dian Territory on its hands, and it requires the greatest
watchfulness and energy to defeat the invasion. At this
moment, while I am writing this letter, intelligence arrives
that a new attempt is made by bands of intruders to gain
possession of those lands. The unscrupulous leaders of
that lawless movement, although repeatedly baffled, ap
pear determined not to give up. Any measure looking
to an evacuation by the Indians would, therefore, now be
especially unsafe. An attempt to right the wrongs of the
Poncas in that way now, might involve consequences
disastrous to an Indian population a hundred times as
numerous as they are. Those who look only at the wrongs
of the Poncas may not appreciate this consideration. But
it is the duty of Government officers responsible for the
management of Indian affairs at large to foresee such
consequences, and to guard against the danger of choosing
that method of undoing a wrong to some, which will be
apt to bring greater disaster upon a hundred times larger
number.
Does it not appear, in view of this complication of
difficulties, that the Poncas, after the great fundamental
mistake of ceding their lands to the Sioux in 1868, were
60 The Writings of [1880
more the victims of unfortunate circumstances than of
evil designs on the part of anybody connected with the
Interior Department? And if your meeting was called
in the interest of justice, would it not have been just to
the officers of the Government connected with this affair
to take these circumstances into account?
But more remains to be said. It was reported in several
speeches in your meeting that now at last that great wrong
to the Poncas has been ' ' unearthed. " I beg your pardon,
it is by no means now that it has been unearthed. It was
fully disclosed and published three years ago. And who
did it? Not you, Governor, nor Mr. Tibbies, nor Senator
Dawes, nor Mayor Prince. But I did it myself. In my
annual report of 1877, mY firs^ report after the removal of
and after my meeting with the Poncas in Washington,
three years ago, I made the following statement :
Congress at its last session made provision for the removal
of the Poncas from their former reservation on the Missouri
river to the Indian Territory, resolved upon for the reason that
it seemed desirable to get them out of the way of the much
more numerous and powerful Sioux, with whom their relations
were unfriendly. That removal was accordingly commenced
in the early summer. The opposition it met with among the
Poncas themselves and the hardships encountered on the
march are set forth at length in the report of the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs. The Poncas, about 700 in number, were
taken to the Quapaw reservation, in the northeastern corner
of the Indian Territory, with a view to permanent settlement.
But the reluctance with which they had left their old homes,
the strange aspect of a new country, an unusually large number
of cases of disease and death among them and the fact that
they were greatly annoyed by white adventurers hovering
around the reservation, who stole many of their cattle and
ponies, and smuggled whisky into their encampments, en
gendered among them a spirit of discontent which threatened
i88o] Carl Schurz 61
to become unmanageable. They urgently asked for permis
sion to send a delegation of chiefs to Washington to bring
their complaints in person before the President, and it was
reported by their agent that unless this request be granted
there was great danger that they would run away to their old
reserve on the Missouri river. To avoid such trouble, the
permission asked for was given, and the delegation arrived
here on November yth. They expressed the desire to be taken
back to their old reservation on the Missouri, a request which
could not be acceded to. But permission was granted them to
select for themselves, among the lands at the disposal of the
Government in the Indian Territory, a tract at least equal in
size to their old reservation, and they also received the assur
ance that they would be fully compensated in kind for the
log-houses, furniture and agricultural implements, which, in
obedience to the behests of the Government, they had left
behind on the Missouri.
The case of the Poncas seems entitled to especial considera
tion at the hands of Congress. They have always been friendly
to the whites. It is said, and as far as I have been able to
learn, truthfully, that no Ponca ever killed a white man.
The orders of the Government always met with obedient
compliance at their hands. Their removal from their old
homes on the Missouri river was to them a great hardship.
They had been born and raised there. They had houses there
in which they lived according to their ideas of comfort. Many
of them had engaged in agriculture, and possessed cattle and
agricultural implements. They were very reluctant to leave
all this, but when Congress had resolved upon their removal
they finally overcame that reluctance and obeyed. Consider
ing their constant good conduct, their obedient spirit and the
sacrifices they have made, they are certainly entitled to more
than ordinary care at the hands of the Government, and
I urgently recommend that liberal provision be made to aid
them in their new settlement.
In the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
of the same year you will find that statement amplified
62 The Writings of
with much information in detail. In the report of the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, presented by me in 1878,
the following passage occurs:
It should be remembered that their old reservation in
Dakota was confirmed to the Poncas by solemn treaty and at
the time of making the treaty they received promises of certain
annuities in consideration of the cession to the United States
of a large tract of land. That treaty, which is still in force, also
recognized certain depredation claims which are still unad
justed. By a blunder in making the Sioux treaty of 1868, the
96,000 acres belonging to the Poncas were ceded to the Sioux.
The negotiators had no right whatever to make the cession,
and the bad feeling between the Sioux and the Poncas, which
had existed for a long time, compelled the removal of the latter
to the Indian Territory.
In this removal, I am sorry to be compelled to say, the
Poncas were wronged, and restitution should be made as far
as it is in the power of the Government to do so. For the vio
lation of their treaty no adequate return has yet been made.
They gave up lands, houses and agricultural implements.
The houses and implements will be returned them; their
lands should be immediately paid for, and the title to their
present location should be made secure. But the removal
inflicted a far greater injury upon the Poncas for which no
reparation can be made, the loss by death of many of their
number, caused by change of climate.
Nothing having been done in the previous session of
Congress, my report notwithstanding, a bill was drafted
in this Department and submitted to Congress during the
session of 1 878-^9. In that bill provision was made for
an appropriation of $140,000, to indemnify the Poncas
for the lands and other property given up by them, and
to acquire title for them to their new reservation.
In my annual report of 1879 the same subject was again
i88o] Carl Schurz 63
referred to in the following language: "That the Poncas
were grievously wronged by their removal from their
location on the Missouri river to the Indian Territory,
their old reservation having, by a mistake in making the
Sioux treaty, been transferred to the Sioux, has been at
length and repeatedly set forth in my reports as well as
those of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. All that
could be subsequently done by this Department, in the
absence of new legislation, to repair that wrong and to
indemnify them for their losses, has been done with more
than ordinary solicitude. "
At the same time I presented the report of the Commis
sioner of Indian Affairs of that year which, as a reminder,
contained the text of the bill submitted by the Department
to Congress at the previous session and adds: "By the
provisions of the above bill it will be seen that everything
has been done for the Poncas, so far as this Department
can act. Their lands were ceded to the Sioux by act of
Congress, and proper reparation can only be made by
the same authority. "
You will admit that the language employed in those
reports with regard to the wrong done to the Poncas could
not have been stronger; there was nothing concealed or
glossed over. Three years ago, therefore, the matter was
fully "unearthed" and reparation demanded, and it was
done by this Department. But Congress took no notice
of it. If the reparation to the Poncas proposed in the
bill submitted to Congress was not satisfactory, then there
was a full opportunity for Congress to amend that bill
and to act upon its own judgment. If the Poncas had
any real friends in Congress, those friends had, ever since
1877, sufficient knowledge furnished them by me upon
which to speak and to act. But session after session
passed ; this Department again and again called attention
to the matter and Congress said nothing, and did nothing
64 The Writings of
except to appropriate money for the support of the
Poncas.
Had Congress directed this Department to do this or
that, there would have been no hesitation in executing
the law. But now I read in your speech that all that was
required to right the wrongs of the Poncas was "a heart
and a stroke of the pen" on the part of the principal
officer of the Government managing Indian affairs. Three
years ago, by my declarations in the annual report, I
showed that I had a heart for the Poncas long before the
speakers at your meeting. But when you said that it
required merely a stroke of the pen on my part to return
the Poncas to Dakota, you had certainly forgotten that
the powers of the Executive branch of the Government
are limited ; that such a removal and the resettlement of
the Poncas in Dakota would have required much more
money than their support where they were; and that this
Department had no authority of law to spend a dollar of
money that was not appropriated. You go even so far
as to say that this Department had no legal authority to
keep them in the Indian Territory, and to spend any
money for them there; you forget that this Department
reported the matter to Congress in 1877, without any
concealment as to the wrong done, and that Congress by
law made appropriations for the support of the Poncas
in the Indian Territory year after year with that full
knowledge. It is said that had I recommended to Con
gress an appropriation for their return to Dakota, it
would have been granted. But an appropriation was
recommended by this Department for the purpose of
indemnifying them in another way, and Congress, with a
full knowledge of the facts spread by me before them,
might have amended that bill, had it been so minded; yet
the matter received no notice at all.
The reasons why I recommended that the Poncas be
Carl Schurz 65
indemnified upon the lands they then occupied, and why
I thought it wise that it should at least be tried whether
they could not be made comfortable and contented there,
are stated above.
It was hoped that when they were settled upon their
new reserve in the Indian Territory they would go vigor
ously to work to improve their condition, and that such
work, with the prospect of increasing prosperity and well-
being, would render them gradually satisfied. Their
lands are the best in the Indian Territory ; the climate is
as good as in southern Kansas, which is now becoming
densely peopled; their sanitary condition was greatly
changed for the better. The inspiration of successful
work might have made them hopeful and healthy. This
would in all probability have been the case had the
restlessness of their minds, which at first was natural
enough, not been constantly excited by reports coming
to them from the outside that their stay on the lands
they occupied would only be temporary ; that they would
certainly be returned to Dakota, and that, therefore, any
effort to improve their condition on their present location
would be thrown away. That such influences were
assiduously brought to bear upon them there is no doubt.
The evidence is abundant, and the result has been by no
means beneficial to them, although not a few of them have
actually gone to work.
In my annual report I mentioned a petition which was
recently received from the Poncas, and which seems to
indicate that they themselves begin to appreciate their
real interests. It is in the following words :
We, the undersigned chiefs and head men of the Ponca tribe
of Indians, realize the importance of settling all our business
with the Government. Our young men are unsettled and hard
to control, while they think we have a right to our land in
VOL. IV. — 5
66 The Writings of [1880
Dakota, and our tribe will not be finally settled until we have
a title to our present reservation, and we have relinquished
all right to our Dakota land. And we earnestly request that
the chiefs of the Ponca tribe of Indians be permitted to visit
Washington the coming winter for the purpose of signing away
our right to all land in Dakota, and to obtain a title to our
present reservation, and we also wish to settle our Sioux
troubles at the same time.
We make the above request, as we desire to have the young
men of our tribe become settled, and commence to work on
their respective claims. We also desire to make this visit in
order to convince the Government that it is our intention of
remaining where we are, and requesting the aid of the Govern
ment in obtaining teams, wagons, harness, tools &c., with
which to work our land.
Signed :
WHITE EAGLE, BLACK CROW,
FRANK LA FLESCHE, BIG SOLDIER,
CHILD CHIEF, , THE CHIEF,
STANDING BUFFALO, LITTLE PICKER,
RUSH-IN-THE-BOTTLE, BlG BULL,
SHORT-MAN, RED LOAF,
FOUR BEARS, YELLOW BIRD,
WHITE BUFFALO BULL, WHITE FEATHER,
BUFFALO RIB, PETER PRIME AUX,
BIG GOOSE, WALKING SKY.
We the undersigned certify, on honor, that we were present
and witnessed the signing of the above by each of the in
dividuals named, and that the above was written at the
solicitation of the Ponca chiefs.
JOSEPH ESAW, Interpreter.
A. R. SATTERTHWAITE.
PONCA AGENCY, INDIAN TER.,
October 25, 1880.
I notice in your speech a remark that this petition has
been obtained "by fraud or false promises or some cajol-
i88o] Carl Schurz 67
ery. " I can only assure you that there is no information
in this Department to that effect, and I suppose you have
none. I may assure you, further, that the petition has
not been instigated by anybody here. On the contrary,
there are reasons to believe that it was the outgrowth of
a very natural sentiment growing up among those people.
When the chiefs, White Eagle and Standing Buffalo, were
here last winter to testify before the Senate Committee,
it appears that great care was taken to prevent White
Eagle from coming to see me, and he did not come ; but
Standing Buffalo solicited an interview with me, and
remembering the absurd rumor spread on the occasion of
the visit of the Ute chiefs here, that they were held under
duress and were not permitted to speak in the presence of
anybody but a Government official, I assembled several
gentlemen in my office while my conversation with
Standing Buffalo was held. Standing Buffalo spoke to me
as follows : ' ' I would rather do what you want me to do
because I know you have always treated me well. If I
controlled matters myself I would not go away; I would
stay where we are. I am the old chief, and if I go back
there I want to see how many people will stay even if
White Eagle goes. I have a farm-house with pine lumber,
and I have got lands; I don't think it very good for white
men to try to get the Poncas back to their old reservation."
When asked what the condition of the health of his
people was, he answered: "When any people, even the
white man, go to a new country, when they first go there
they do not get along, some die ; but they get used to the
country. When first we got there, all sick; now we are
getting better; some people have had consumption before
they went down to the Indian Territory ; a good many died
on account of the change. "
When asked whether they had been receiving letters
from Omaha or other places, asking them not to do any
68 The Writings of
work because they would be taken away from there, he
answered: "Yes, we get letters all the time; I do not
know whether the letters come from Omaha; they also
told me the Ponca going to get his land back ; that is the
reason the Ponca didn't want to work. I think that
letters came from here; somebody put them, Bright Eyes
put them, and in that way the letters came around to the
Ponca Agency. "
I have also received a letter, signed by Standing Buffalo,
dated on May 3, 1880, in which the following passage
occurs :
As I told you when I was in Washington last winter, I
would rather stay here than anywhere else. My people
have quieted down, but somebody has told them that when
Congress adjourns they will be told whether they can go back
to their old reservation or not. I do not do as I want to at
all times, but I do as you advise me to do; but one-half of
the tribe would remain here with me if I advise it, should the
others leave. I can prove by any one that the half-breeds
are the worst about trying to get back to Dakota ; some white
men have been fooling with us for nearly two years, and pre
venting us from doing anything. It is not our fault that the
Poncas are unsettled. Stop these white people from interfer
ing with us and our people will quiet down and go to work.
When I was in Washington I thought that but few of the
Poncas would be willing to stay, and I asked for only ten
wagons; I would now like to have twenty wagons for my
people.
The talk Standing Buffalo held with me is so much in
accord with the letter I received that I am compelled to
conclude the latter expresses his real sentiments ; and if so,
then the petition appears to be the result of a change
of feeling, which from Standing Buffalo's immediate fol
lowers has spread over the whole tribe; this, certainly,
can have been the case. It seems to me therefore that to
Carl Schurz 69
call it the result of fraud or other illegitimate practices, is
at least a hasty conclusion not warranted by other evi
dence. Moreover, if the petition does not express the
real sentiments of the Poncas, and has been extorted from
them by illegitimate means, the men so extorting it have
made a great mistake in advising that they be permitted
to go to Washington where they would be at perfect
liberty to express their true sentiments not only before me
but before others. I would certainly not restrain them.
But if that petition does express their real sentiments and
they are willing to stay where they are, and to improve
their condition, and to accept indemnity for the lands
they lost in Dakota, would not that be, in view of all the
difficulties surrounding the case, a satisfactory solution of
the problem? If the point of right and principle in ques
tion be fully and clearly established by act of Congress ;
if the ceding away of the Ponca lands to the Sioux be
thus fully recognized as a wrong; if ample indemnity be
paid for it, and if the Poncas then are content to stay where
they are, thus avoiding a new removal, the breaking up of
their present houses and farms and mills and educational
facilities, and the transfer to Dakota, where all these
things would have to be begun again from the beginning,
avoiding also a possibly unpleasant contact with the
Sioux, and a partial evacuation of the Indian Territory,
which appears especially dangerous under present cir
cumstances — would that not be satisfactory to you?
Would you in that case wish they had not come to such a
conclusion? And, indeed, considering that the quality
of the land on which they now are is much better than
that of their land in Dakota, and the circumstance that
after much suffering they appear at last to have now
become acclimated like other settlers in that region, does
it not seem that in time they may become prosperous and
contented? Would you regret this? It was said that the
70 The Writings of [1880
advocates of fiat money deplored the reviving prosperity
of the country because it destroyed their arguments.
Can it be that any sincere friend of the Indians would
regret the success of a solution apt to avoid serious risks
and difficulties because it stopped their agitation? I
should be sorry to think so.
I say to you frankly that I desire this solution. I know
very well that no reparation can be perfectly complete,
for the loss they have suffered by death, which I deplore
as much as you do, cannot be repaired by this settlement,
nor can it be by their return to Dakota. But we have to
take care of the living, and this can be done by the solu
tion here set forth, which appears to me the best for the
Poncas as well as the safest with regard to the mainten
ance of peace and the protection of the rights and interests
of tribes in the Indian Territory much more numerous
than they. Nor would such a solution leave out of view
the principles contended for. It is in the nature of com
pensation for property taken by the Government in the
way of expropriation for public use, or by an error like
the Sioux treaty of 1868, where restitution in kind would
endanger the rights of other innocent parties. I will
say further that conscientiously believing this to be the
best solution, I shall express that opinion to the Ponca
chiefs and encourage its acceptance, not by way of com
mand, but by way of argument. I shall consider it my
duty to do so, and I shall be glad if the Poncas accept it.
It is quite possible, if new emissaries are sent among them
again for the purpose of dissuading them from any consent
to this proposition or of inducing them to run away in a
disorderly manner from the lands they now occupy, that
the Poncas may be prevailed upon to reject the reparation
thus offered to them, notwithstanding the petition they
have sent to me. But I trust that you and all the sincere
friends of the Indians engaged in this movement will
i88oj Carl Schurz 71
discountenance such mischievous practices; and that if
this solution appears acceptable to the Poncas no influence
be employed to prevent it. On the contrary, I should
think that every true friend of the Indians would aid in its
accomplishment .
Permit me now a few words about the resolutions
passed at your meeting. The first of them denounces the
wrong done to the Poncas and demands reparation. The
second is in two parts: first, "that it is unbecoming in a
free Government to allow its agents to slander, prosecute
and imprison those whose only offense lies in befriending
the victims of that Government's oppression. " This un
doubtedly refers to the arrest of Mr. Tibbies last sum
mer, on the Ponca reservation, by the Indian agent there.
The report made to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
by Agent Whiting, upon this occurrence, was as follows:
I have to state that on the 28th ultimo, as I was on my way
to Arkansas City, I was informed that Mr. Tibbies had started
that morning on horse-back for Ponca agency, and in connec
tion with an accomplice, who was to remain in the State of
Kansas he intended to coax the Poncas to run off, a few fami
lies at a time, and meet at a point a few miles from Nez Perce*
reservation, where he (Tibbies) would have supplies furnished
to feed them, until quite a number were collected, when he
would take them all back to Dakota. The Indians informed
me that Mr. Tibbies told them to collect all the property they
could and meet him at the above-named point; that he
promised them wagons, harness, farming implements, horses,
cattle etc., and that they would receive rations until they could
raise a crop. Mr. Tibbies told them to run off in the night
and to tell no one where they were going. The evening Mr.
Tibbies was arrested four families had made arrangements to
run off and join him at the appointed place.
On the 2Qth ultimo I returned to the agency and found Mr.
Tibbies under arrest, but being very pleasantly entertained at
72 The Writings of
the house of Mr. Frisbie, agency carpenter, where he had
taken his supper.
Mr. Tibbies was arrested on the evening of the 29th ultimo,
while trying to make his way across Nez Perc£ reservation to
a cattle camp, where he was making his headquarters, by a
Nez Perce* policeman, and taken to Oakland agency, where
he was recognized, and was informed that he must consider
himself a prisoner until word could be sent to Ponca agency.
Mr. Tibbies was escorted to Ponca agency by agency employes
where he arrived about dark and was given his supper. Upon
my arrival I took Mr. Tibbies to my house and gave him a
room for the night, stationing a white employe in the hall, to
see that he made no effort to escape. In the morning Mr.
Tibbies was given his breakfast, after which he was told to
mount the pony he brought to the agency, and in company
with the chief of police and four Indian policemen he was
escorted to the State line and warned of the consequences
should he return.
Mr. Tibbies was treated kindly and respectfully while under
arrest, there was no violence attempted or threatened, and he
was assured that no harm should befall him. He was enter
tained the same as any other person visiting the agency,
except a watch was kept over him to prevent his escaping.
I am aware that Mr. Tibbies says he went there to have
a legal consultation with the Indians, and that his life
was in imminent danger. He frequently speaks of such
perils. He seems to like the robes of martyrdom. From
what I know of the two men I see very good reason to take
the word of Agent Whiting in preference to that of Mr.
Tibbies. Upon this point I expect you to agree with
me some day. As to the things done by Mr. Tibbies on
the Ponca reservation, according to the report of Agent
Whiting, I desire to call your attention to the following
sections of the Revised Statutes :
SEC. 2111. Every person who sends any talk, speech,
message or letter to any Indian nation, tribe, chief or indi-
Carl Schurz 73
vidual, with an intent to produce a contravention or infrac
tion of any treaty or law of the United States, or to disturb
the peace and tranquillity of the United States, is liable to a
penalty of two thousand dollars.
SEC. 2 1 12. Every person who carries or delivers any talk,
message, speech or letter intended to produce a contravention
or infraction of any treaty or law of the United States, or to
disturb the peace and tranquillity of the United States, knowing
the contents thereof, to or from any Indian nation, tribe, chief
or individual, from or to any person or persons whatever,
residing within the United States, or from or to any subject,
citizen or agent of any foreign power or state, is liable to a
penalty of one thousand dollars.
SEC. 2113. Every person who carries on a correspondence,
by letter or otherwise, with any foreign nation or power, with
an intent to induce such foreign nation or power to excite any
Indian nation, tribe, chief or individual, to war against the
United States, or to the violation of any existing treaty; or
who alienates, or attempts to alienate, the confidence of any
Indian or Indians from the Government of the United States,
is liable to a penalty of one thousand dollars.
SEC. 2147. The Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and the
Indian agents and sub-agents, shall have authority to remove
from the Indian country all persons found therein contrary
to law; and the President is authorized to direct the military
force to be employed in such removal.
SEC. 2148. If any person who has been removed from the
Indian country shall thereafter at any time return, or be found
within the Indian country, he shall be liable to a penalty of
one thousand dollars.
SEC. 2149. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs is author
ized and required, with the approval of the Secretary of the In
terior, to remove from any tribal reservation any person being
therein without authority of law, or whose presence within the
limits of the reservation may, in the judgment of the Commis
sioner, be detrimental to the peace and welfare of the Indians ;
and may employ for the purpose such force as may be neces
sary to enable the agent to effect the removal of such person.
74 The Writings of
When a man enters an Indian reservation and mis
chievously tries by false promises which he cannot per
form, as in this case, or in any other way, to induce the
Indians to run away, breaking up their settlements,
an Indian agent will consider it his duty to enforce the
above provisions of law.
The second part of the resolution is as follows: "That
it shows consciousness of wrong and fear of justice when
the highest officials belie their principles by denying a
hearing in our own courts to those who claim the protec
tion of the laws." I suppose this refers to the circum
stance that on some occasion I stated that, according to
the opinion of lawyers I had consulted, an Indian tribe
cannot sue the United States in the Federal courts, as
decided by the Supreme Court in the case of the Cherokee
Nation vs. the State of Georgia, which decision was
delivered by Chief Justice Marshall. If there was any
denial of justice in this then it was Chief Justice Marshall
who did it, unless the lawyers misunderstand him; but
certainly not I, for I declared at the same time that "if
an Indian tribe could maintain an action in the courts of
the United States to assert its right I should object to it
just as little as I would object to the exercise of the same
privilege on the part of white men. " It may be that the
censure expressed in that resolution refers to the circum
stance that when the brief of the United States District
Attorney in Nebraska for an appeal from Judge Dundy's
habeas corpus decision was submitted to me, I could not
approve the principles upon which the argument of that
brief was based and advised the Attorney-General that,
as far as I, as Secretary of the Interior, was concerned,
there was no desire that an appeal should be taken, but
rather that Judge Dundy's decision should stand without
question on the part of the Government. Moreover, I
have repeatedly recommended the passage of a statute by
Carl Schurz 75
Congress extending the jurisdiction of the courts over
Indian reservations, and that the Indians have the pro
tection of the laws like white men.
Under such circumstances I think you will admit
yourself that the language of the resolution was highly
intemperate and unjustifiable, to say the least of it.
The third resolution calls upon the President for a
prompt use of his large powers to rectify the injuries done.
This seems to leave out of view that the President has to
execute the laws passed by Congress as they are and can
not order the use of any money without an appropriation.
And as in this case there is neither legal authority nor
appropriation he can do nothing without the further
action of Congress.
To sum up the case, on two things you and I are agreed.
First, a great wrong has been done to the Poncas. I
denounced that wrong years before you did. Second,
reparation is due them. This Department asked for
reparation long before you did. The only question of
difference between us is what that reparation shall be.
You look at it from the standpoint of one who has the
Poncas alone in view. I look at it as one who has the
responsibility for the management of the affairs of all
the Indian tribes, of whom the Poncas form but a small
part. You demand a reparation which with that respon
sibility upon me, I consider attended with serious risks
and difficulties. I demand a reparation which, in point of
principle, is just as good, but which at the same time is to
avoid all those risks and difficulties.
In differing from you I am actuated by no pride of
opinion. I have shown more than once, when I became
aware of having made a mistake, that I did not hesitate to
acknowledge and correct it. Such an acknowledgment
would be particularly easy in this instance, as I was the
first to denounce the wrong that was done ; and when now
76 The Writings of
my opinion as to what reparation should be made does
not agree with that of others, they have no reason to
attribute it to mere stubbornness, and certainly not to a
want of heart for the suffering Indians. In what I say to
you I express my honest conviction under a keen sense of
the responsibility I have to bear. It may be called an
error of judgment, perhaps, which I think it is not, but
nobody has a right to call it anything else. The thought
of gross injustice to the Indians is as revolting to me as it
is to you, and probably much more so, for my impressions
are not owing to a sudden excitement produced by a single
case. I have seen large numbers of Indians here in
Washington, where they came to express their complaints
and their wishes. I have gone to visit them on their
reservations and in the wilderness in order to study their
needs, and there I have learned to appreciate their good
traits, as well as their faults and their helplessness; and
I am not ashamed to say that I have conceived for them
the hearty sympathy of a personal friend. But that very
friendship does not permit me to overlook the dangers and
the interests of the many when a wrong done to a few is
to be righted, and can be substantially righted without
putting the rights of others in peril. When a man in my
position has patiently, earnestly and laboriously studied
the Indian problem, when day after day he has watched
over the rights and interests of those helpless people as
much as any one in his position before, spared no effort
to better their condition and accomplished some things
at least that promise to endure, he may consider himself
entitled to something better than scurrilous abuse or
injurious insinuations from decent men.
I deeply regret that an agitation like this appears to
have brought about antagonism between those who ought
to work harmoniously together for a common end. I do
not desire to boast of anything. But when an effort is
i88o] Carl Schurz 77
made to produce the impression as if this Department had
during four years devoted itself principally to the business
of oppressing the Poncas, I may be pardoned for mention
ing some other ends it has endeavored to serve. If those
who participate in this agitation will take the trouble to
raise their eyes for a moment from that one case which
alone they see in the whole Indian question, they would
perceive that under this Administration many things have
been done which deserve their hearty sympathy and
cooperation; they would observe constant efforts to se
cure by statute to the Indians the equal protection of
the laws and an impregnable title to their lands and
homes; they would notice practical measures, not merely
to declare the Indian "a person" in theory, but to make
him a person capable of taking care of himself, and of
exercising and maintaining his rights; they would see the
establishment of educational institutions which, although
new, have already produced most promising results; they
would see thousands of Indians but a short time ago
vagrant and idle, now earning wages running into hun
dreds of thousands of dollars as freighters ; they would see
the organization of an Indian police which has not only
been most efficacious in the maintenance of law and order,
but also in producing a moral discipline, formerly unknown
to them; they would see multitudes of Indians but a
few years since on the warpath, now building houses and
cultivating their farms in their simple way, and raising
cattle and asking Congress for the white man's title to
their lands ; they would notice the conspicuous absence of
those scandals in the Indian service which at another
period called forth so much complaint; they would see a
general treatment of the Indians humane and progressive ;
they would see the introduction of principles in our Indian
policy which at a future day promise to work the solution
of that difficult problem. I do not pretend that this is
78 The Writings of
complete or perfect, but it is something; and every true
friend of a just and sound Indian policy will rather en
deavor to promote its development by sympathetic co
operation than discredit and hamper it by unreasoning
criticism and random attacks.
Certainly I do not deprecate criticism. When it is
just, it is useful and welcome ; when it is unjust, it may
injure the cause it is meant to serve. Needless disagree
ments, preventing the cooperation for a good end of
those who ought to work together, I should especially
deplore in a community whose enlightened public spirit
and active philanthropy have served so many noble causes
and whose good opinion I therefore particularly value.
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2, 1881.
Dear General : You invited me to write you my views
on the situation, and I will do so without reserve.
You labor under certain disadvantages as compared
with the present Administration, which you should not
lose sight of. We came in under a cloud: a disputed
Presidential title, hard times, the Republican party in
discredit and discord. The Administration goes out with
the record of purity and generally successful management ;
the times are prosperous, the party strengthened morally
and numerically. Your Administration will come in
under a full blaze of sunshine: good times, a hopeful
feeling throughout the country, the character of the party
restored and its prospects brightened. We started on a
bad state of things ; every improvement went to our credit.
You start on a good state of things ; every failure to keep
things in the present good condition, every untoward
accident, will go to your discredit. Your task is the more
difficult one and will require the more careful handling.
Carl Schurz 79
We had much to gain, you have much to lose. That is
what I mean in saying that you labor under a certain
disadvantage.
Upon the success of your Administration will depend
the future of the Republican party as well as your own.
The two are in a certain sense identical. If you succeed,
you should be and will be renominated. If you fail, the
Republican party will succumb to the opposition in 1884.
Any lowering of the present standard will be looked upon
as a failure.
Your success in the best sense of the word will depend
upon your management of the public business, not upon
the management of party politics, or, at least, upon the
latter only in a very small degree. It is now generally
recognized that the Republican party in the last campaign
was greatly strengthened by the character and success of
the present Administration. Indeed, without these things
victory would have been impossible. The success of
the present Administration was owing exclusively to the
conduct of the public business, for political management
there was none. If wise political management can go
hand in hand with a good conduct of the public business
so much the better. But the latter should never be sub
ordinated to the former. The idea that the former can
make up for failures in the latter, will prove a disastrous
delusion.
You want, therefore, in the first place, a good business
Cabinet upon whose intelligence, integrity and energy you
can depend. It is desirable that the party be kept har
monious if that is possible, and that to this end the
different elements composing the Republican party be
properly respected. But it is of infinitely greater im
portance that every member of your Cabinet give you, by
his character and ability, the greatest possible assurance
that in his hands the public interests committed to his
8o The Writings of
care be perfectly safe. You will get along much better
without harmony in the party than without a perfectly
honest and intelligent management of the public affairs.
When the former can be obtained only at the expense of
the latter, it should be sacrificed without hesitation. It is
a great mistake that an Administration cannot sustain
itself and succeed in the best sense of the term without
an harmonious party at its back. Our experience is that
the friendship of certain elements in the party purchased
at the price which it would have cost, would have been
far more dangerous to our general success than their
hostility proved to be. You will undoubtedly go through
the same experience, and it will not injure you, if you
realize and appreciate it early enough. An Administra
tion faithfully serving the public interest will always be
much stronger than any faction in the party, however
strong and demonstrative, even if it appear like a majority
of it.
Permit me to repeat some of the remarks I made in our
conversation here. You should be perfectly sure not
only of the ability and general character but also of the
political motives of every one of your Cabinet Ministers.
Your Cabinet should be your Constitutional council,
not an assemblage of agents of party leaders.
No member of your Cabinet should have reason to
think that he owed his position to any other influence
than your own free choice.
Especially at the head of the Treasury, the Interior,
the Post-Office and the Department of Justice you should
have men whom you can count upon to [serve] the public
interest and [be] loyal to yourself under all circumstances,
without being watched. They should also have the neces
sary moral courage to say No on all proper occasions what
ever pressure be brought upon them. They must be able to
say -No for you, and even to oppose your own good-nature
i88i] Carl Schurz 81
when necessity requires it. These are the Departments
which manage the public service in all the branches that
involve the moral and political character and the efficiency
of the Administration at home. An unreliable man at
the head of any one of them can do much mischief with
out your becoming aware of it in time to prevent the
consequences.
As to the Treasury, I fear you have lost your best
opportunity. It has always been my opinion that Mr.
Sherman ought to remain at the head of it, and that it
will be almost impossible to find a man that can fill his
place. The advantage of the confidence which his reten
tion would have secured to your Administration, and of
the ability he would have brought to the discharge of his
duties would have far outweighed all the disadvantages
possibly growing from the displeasure of some political
leaders, which his presence in the Cabinet might have
called forth. Of course, I do not know whether his re
tention is still among the possibilities, but if it is, I would
in your place not hesitate a moment between him and
some second-rate man who would probably shine only by
the contrast.
For the Postmaster-Generalship, which requires only
an inferior kind of talent, a man of thoroughly sound
character and business ability will be sufficient, but you
should be able to depend upon him as a personal friend.
I have heard Wayne McVeagh mentioned in connection
with the Department of Justice. In fact, you mentioned
him yourself in your conversation here. I think he
would be a good selection in every essential respect. He
would also be a most excellent feature of your Cabinet
in a social respect.
The Interior Department is the most dangerous branch
of the public service. It is more exposed to corrupt
influences and more subject to untoward accidents than
VOL. IV. — 6
82 The Writings of [i88x
any other. To keep it in good repute and to manage its
business successfully requires on the part of its head a
thorough knowledge of its machinery, untiring work and
sleepless vigilance. I shall never forget the trials I had to
go through during the first period of my Administration,
and the mistakes that were made before I had things
well in hand. It is a constant fight with the sharks that
surround the Indian bureau, the General Land Office, the
Pension Office and the Patent Office, and a ceaseless
struggle with perplexing questions and situations, es
pecially in the Indian service. Unless the head of the
Interior Department well understands and performs his
full duty, your Administration will be in constant danger
of disgrace. Of all men that I know there is not one as
well fitted for that place as General Walker, the present
head of the Census Office. He has been Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, and understands that business thoroughly.
You cannot find a man better equipped for it. He
possesses large acquirements, great working capacity and
extensive knowledge of general affairs, great energy and
firmness, and at the same time an excellent temper. His
character is of the highest. If he were placed at the head
of the Interior Department, I should consider you out of
danger at the most delicate point. I have heard it said
that he does not represent any political force. If he did
not, in the party sense, I should scarcely consider it an
objection; for a successful conduct in that branch of the
business would soon be felt in itself as a political force.
But he would represent in your Cabinet the liberal
Republican element in its best features, and his appoint
ment would, I have no doubt, be hailed by a very large
number of Republicans, and just those whose approval a
man like you would most keenly appreciate, as a thing of
good omen. I earnestly commend this to your attention.
The estimation in which your Administration will be
i88i] Carl Schurz 83
held, will depend in a great measure upon the character
of your Cabinet, and that character will be determined
not only by the presence of some elements in it, but also
by the conspicuous absence of others. I trust it is scarcely
necessary to speak to you of such characters as Chaffee,
Dorsey, Filley, Hitchcock etc. Any one of them con
nected in any way with your Administration would sink
it at once in public esteem.
I understand that efforts are being made to press upon
you Mr. Bowman of Kentucky, as a Southern man. He
has been for some time in the employment of this Depart
ment as a Commissioner, and my experience leads me to
the conclusion that he would by no means be a proper man
to take into your official family. Also Mr. Routt of
Colorado has been spoken of. He does not possess the
necessary ability and I know that the support given him
is only ostensible. Some of those who bring his name
before you will privately tell you so, as they have told me.
But I do not know whether you desire to have my
judgment of persons. If you do, command me, and I
shall speak to you with entire frankness. On the whole,
whatever you may think at present of the necessity of
satisfying everybody and of avoiding unpleasant compli
cations, I have no doubt before you are far advanced in
your Administration, you will become convinced that the
best policy is to make up your mind clearly as to what
you want to accomplish for the public good, and then to
select the best men you can find for that purpose and to
go straight ahead without fear or favor. "A pound of
pluck is worth a ton of luck. " It is pluck in the pursuit
of good ends the people admire and they will stand by.
I have to apologize for the length of this letter, and
perhaps also for the positiveness of its tone. But I have
written you with entire frankness as one who means to be
a true friend to you. I see the difficulties and dangers
84 The Writings of [1881
surrounding you and feel anxious about them. When I
shall have returned to journalistic work to exercise an
influence [on] public opinion, nothing will delight me more
than to be able to carry on the business of criticism in
the way of support and approval of your endeavors and
achievements.
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 1881.
Permit me now a few remarks of a general character
in addition to my last letter. I hear that you are troubled
by the "geographical question" in connection with the
formation of your Cabinet. While it may seem desirable
that the members of the Cabinet should be fairly distri
buted in the geographical sense, this consideration appears,
before the formation of the Cabinet, of far greater im
portance than it will after the fait accompli. When the
Cabinet is announced there always is a little grumble
from this or that section or State, but it will soon die out.
The only thing of real importance is that every member of
the Cabinet be fit for his place, no matter from what part
of the country he may come. If you succeed in making
a Cabinet the individual fitness of whose members is
conceded, the geographical grumble will amount to
nothing and never give you any trouble. But if you
sacrifice fitness to the geographical consideration and a
member of your Cabinet turns out a failure, the people
will scarcely accept the excuse that you selected a man of
questionable fitness, or rejected a better man, merely for
the purpose of gratifying a particular section of the
1 About Schurz's wish to appoint a Commissioner of Indian Affairs of
such qualities that he would be retained by Garfi eld's Administration.
See letter of Jan. 28, 1881.
Carl Schurz 85
country. The judgment of public opinion will be that
the public interest should have been considered as first
in importance.
If, for instance, you should be inclined to consider the
appointment of General Walker as Secretary of the
Interior on account of his eminent fitness and as the most
available representative of the "independent" element of
the Republican party, the objection that he hails from
New England would, as I think, be generally deemed of
small consequence. It would be forgotten in a fortnight ;
and you would have the benefit of his ability, experience
and political connections thenceforward unquestioned.
Moreover, recent events make it more important than
ever that you should have a good man belonging to the
independent wing of the Republican party in your official
family. It cannot have escaped you that if one-half of
the "Republican scratcher's" vote in New York had gone
to the Democrats, the election would have been lost.
To be sure, the same may be said of "stalwart" elements.
But there is this distinction to be made : while these stal
warts have no place of abode except in the party and the
offices are to them a matter of great consideration, the
class of the independents I speak of deem it of far greater
importance that the Government be well conducted than
what set of men conducts it, and are therefore not un
willing straightforwardly to oppose the party when they
think it wrong. Besides, no man with open eyes will fail
to observe that the general tendency is decidedly in the
direction of independent politics, and that the independent
element is therefore likely to grow steadily in strength.
The feeling in favor of "a change, " after the Republican
party had been in power for twenty years, was very strong,
and it would have been almost irresistibly so, had the
Administration during the last four years been more open
to attack. That feeling in favor of "a change" will be
86 The Writings of
still stronger when the Republican party has been twenty-
four years in power, and it may become overwhelming if
the conduct of the Government during the next four
years presents vulnerable points or the Republican party
renders itself in any way obnoxious to independent
opinion. The Republican party will more than ever need
the support of the independent element in order to main
tain itself in power four years hence, and it can keep that
support only by deserving it. That support will certainly
be forfeited by any connivance with present and any
relapse into old abuses.
One of the greatest dangers to the ascendancy of the
Republican party consists in the evils of boss-rule. Look
at New York to-day. Whatever some editors may say,
there is no doubt that Mr. Platt's nomination for the
Senate was dictated by Mr. Conkling, and if there were
an election in that State to-morrow it is more than prob
able that an overwhelming majority of the independent
vote would go against the Republicans. At least I am
so advised by persons who may be presumed to be well
informed. In Pennsylvania there is an actual revolt.
In regard to this matter your Administration will find
itself in the same situation in which the present has been
during the last four years. It will have to attract and
keep attached to the party the elements which local poli
tics are calculated to repel. It will have to do this by
conducting the affairs of the Government in an irreproach
able and generally acceptable manner, and also by keeping
itself in living contact with the independent element.
You will find it necessary to have somebody in your
Cabinet who in this respect can do what I did during these
four years: maintain active correspondence with those
elements, explain to them things liable to be misunder
stood, communicate their views and wishes to the head
of the Government and so on. He should be a man
i88i] Carl Schurz 87
understanding the independent element and enjoying
their confidence. Walker possesses these important quali
fications. He is a man of tact, also, as well as of sound
principle. His administration of the Department would,
I have no doubt, raise him in the general opinion of the
country and be of great benefit to you. Compared
with such considerations the geographical question would
seem to amount to very little.
Let me call your attention to another point. The civil
service reform movement started in the Democratic
party is meant to be, and is, a serious thing. Pendleton
believes in it and will honestly push it. Others will aid
him from political motives. Some people laughed at it
at first, but it will not be a thing to be laughed at as it
goes on. It is probable that the men having the matter
in hand will produce a sensible plan. They will have the
sympathy and support of a constantly growing number of
Republicans. The Republican party cannot afford to
let this movement pass to the credit of the Democrats.
If the Republicans in Congress are wise they will take it
out of the hands of their opponents and carry it on them
selves. If they do not do so in Congress, the Administra
tion will have to do it alone, and to this end you will
want at least one man in your official family who believes
in it and understands it. Any return to old vicious
methods will turn out to be fraught with very grave
consequences as to the strength of the party.
I find an opinion expressed in some papers that the
machine-victory in the Senatorial election in New York
will be apt to secure to Conkling the control of the patron
age in that State. It should have just the contrary effect.
The control of the offices would strengthen Conkling in
the management of the party organization, but it would
inevitably drive away from the party a number of voters
more than large enough to bring on its defeat as soon as
88 The Writings of
the Democracy is reunited. Only your Administration
can save New York and States similarly situated, by
being and offering that which boss-rule is not. I trust
you do not think of putting at the head of the Treasury a
Wall street banker. It would be fatal. If you deem it
necessary to give a place in your Cabinet to the Conkling-
Grant wing of the party, no fairminded man in the
country will find fault with you for selecting the person
and the place yourself. If Conkling then quarrels with
you, he will soon discover that he cannot afford to quarrel
with two Republican Administrations in succession. It
will be likely to prove a fatal blow to his influence even
among the followers who so far have stood by him. You
are entirely master of the situation. Only let your
Administration be clean in character and able in its
management of the public business, and the rest will in
a great measure take care of itself. There are certain
antagonisms which, I think, you cannot avoid. You will
easily pass through them if the cleanness of your Admin
istration in point of character and its ability secures the
confidence of the country. Failure in that respect will be
the only really dangerous thing.
P. S. The enclosed may amuse you as a specimen of
the tricks of a shrewd wirepuller who wants to appear as a
great man and to become your Postmaster-General.
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
Jan. 28, 1 88 1.
Dear General: Your letter of the 2Oth inst. seems to
indicate that you do not desire to give your assent in any
manner that might be considered binding, to the appoint
ment of Inspector Pollock as Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, with the understanding that he should remain in
place under your Administration. In suggesting his
Carl Schurz 89
appointment I did, of course, not mean anything but
that after the 4th of March he should have a full and fair
chance to prove his efficiency. I recommended him
knowing him, from my own official experience, to be in
every essential respect well fitted for the place. I do not
think that the appointment of Senator Bruce would be a
fortunate one. The Commissioner ship of Indian Affairs
requires a man of thorough business training and habits,
indefatigable industry, quick judgment and great power
of resistance. I fully recognize Senator Bruce's excellent
qualities, but they are not such as would fit him for the
perplexing and arduous duties of that office. He appears
to be rather of an indolent disposition, and I am inclined
to think he would soon feel very uncomfortable in the
Indian Office, which is one of the most difficult and trying
positions under the Government. However, if you desire
to leave matters in statu quo until the 4th of March and
then make new arrangements, I will drop it here, only
repeating that you will need in the Interior Department
and the Indian Office men of capacity, working energy,
experience and great firmness of character, to guard your
Administration against damaging accidents.
You ask me whether I do not think that Wayne Mc-
Veagh would be a proper man to form the connecting
link between your Administration and the independent
element. I esteem Wayne McVeagh very highly, and my
relations with him are those of warm personal friendship.
I should be very happy to see him in your Cabinet, and I
sincerely hope he will be there. His general correspon
dence with the independent Republicans, however, would
not be as intimate and confidential as it would be between
them and General Walker.
But permit me to suggest that it would probably be an
exceedingly good thing for your Administration to have
both McVeagh and Walker in it. I cannot impress upon
90 The Writings of
you too strongly the necessity of having in the Interior
Department a man who can be depended upon to put that
most vulnerable and dangerous point of the Administra
tion in a condition of safety. With regard to this point,
if I had the responsibility of constructing a Cabinet, the
geographical would not have a feather's weight with me.
Let me repeat that the geographical consideration appears
of great importance only before the formation of the
Cabinet, and perhaps one day after it, and is then never
heard of again. General Grant had in his Cabinet at
one time five men from the States east of the Alleghany
mountains, a fact which was scarcely remembered at that
time, and the only censure passed upon the Cabinet was
that the men composing it were in some instances not the
right kind of persons. Believe me, if your Secretary of the
Interior is good, nobody will ask where he comes from a
week after his appointment. If he turns out badly, it
will not be taken as an excuse that he was selected for
geographical reasons. I speak of this with so much
warmth and urgency because I know the Interior Depart
ment and all the difficulties and dangers connected with it ;
because I have the policies successfully inaugurated in
several of its branches very much at heart and would
greatly deplore to see them spoiled, and because I am
convinced, from personal observation and experience,
that Walker is far better equipped for its business than
any man so far mentioned in connection with it, in fact
far better than any man I know.
As the Cabinet is the subject of frequent discussions
here, I have now and then mentioned Walker's name, and
in every instance the unanimous judgment was that his
appointment would be almost too good a thing to hope for.
I can only add that such an appointment would be hailed
by every well-wisher of the Republic in general and your
Administration in particular with the greatest satisfaction,
i88i] Carl Schurz 91
while the appointment of any man of indifferent or doubt
ful qualifications to so enormously difficult and responsible
a position would be likely to become the cause of great
regret to you.
Pardon this reiteration. My own interest in the matter
is only that of an ordinary American citizen. Yours is
that of the responsible head of the Government.
TO HENRY L. DAWES '
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 1881.
I have read your speech recently delivered in the Senate
on the killing of the Ponca chief, Big Snake, in which you
made certain reflections on the conduct of the Interior
Department calling for my attention.
A Cabinet officer has no voice on the floor of the Senate.
He cannot personally defend himself there against any
attack, however unjust. He cannot correct misstatements
of facts, however reckless. And even when Senators
undertake his defense, as was generously done in this
instance, they can scarcely ever be as conversant with all
the circumstances of the case as the attacked Cabinet
minister is himself. I shall certainly not object to the
freest use of the privileges of a Senator, which I well
understand; but no fairminded man will, on the other
hand, find fault with me if I employ those means of public
defense which every citizen has at his disposal. The
nature of your attack relieves me of those considerations
of official restraint which otherwise would control my
language.
I have been exposed to so much misrepresentation and
1 An open letter in reply to a speech made by Mr. Dawes in the U. S.
Senate on the case of Big Snake.
92 The Writings of
obloquy in connection with the Ponca business that I
think it time to call things by their right names. I want
fair play, nothing else.
The facts upon which you make your speech are, in a
few words, as follows :
The agent of the Ponca Indians in October, 1879,
officially informed the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
that a Ponca Indian, Big Snake, was threatening his life
and stirring up disturbance among the Indians. He
requested that this Indian be arrested and confined at
Fort Reno, and that a sufficient force of soldiers be sent to
the Ponca agency to effect the arrest. This request was
sent by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs through the
Interior Department, with its approval, to the Secretary
of War. The soldiers appeared at the Ponca agency and
the officer commanding them was informed by the agent
that Big Snake was expected at the agency at a certain
time on that day to receive some money due him, and he
thought it would be better for the officer to make the
arrest on that occasion. The Indian came and the officer
informed him that he was there for the purpose of arresting
him. The Indian, a powerful man, resisted; a scuffle
ensued, and in that scuffle one of the soldiers, without
orders, shot him.
Whether the agent was justified in fearing danger to his
life from the Indian, I will not discuss. There is no doubt
that he thought so. It is probable that he had reason to
think so. When I visited the Ponca agency late in Sep
tember, 1879, I was informed by several persons of the
troublesome conduct of Big Snake. The agent wrote the
Indian Office on that subject not long after the massacre
of Meeker and his employes had taken place on the Ute
reservation, and there was more excitement among the
Indians, and more apprehension among agency people
than usual. His representations could not be disre-
i88i] Carl Schurz 93
garded by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the
Department.
The request by the agent to have the Indian arrested
and confined i l for the rest of his natural life ' ' was at once
rejected and altered by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
to an arrest until further disposition. So it went to the
War Department.
From this plain statement of facts, and all the evidence
in the case, which also shows that the agent who was
present called out to the soldiers not to shoot, it appears
clearly that this deplorable catastrophe was only the result
of a sudden impulse of a soldier, a bad impulse certainly,
and that no one else but he himself could be held re
sponsible for the murderous deed. This will be the con
clusion of every fairminded man, as it was the conclusion
arrived at by Senator Kirkwood, who is conversant with
all the circumstances of the case, being the chairman of
the committee appointed to investigate it, and who
expressed that opinion clearly and unmistakably on the
floor of the Senate.
Now, what have you made of this story? Delivering a
eulogy upon the murdered Indian, you describe him as one
of two brothers who had long and firmly resisted the
tyranny of the Government; one of the brothers "the
Government is at this moment engaged in the laudable
attempt to starve into submission since it has not as yet
been convenient to otherwise dispose of him," which I
suppose is intended to mean that the Government has as
yet not found it convenient to procure his assassination;
while the other, Big Snake, has " fallen in the conflict."
"With the latter," you say, "the work was quicker and
more effective. " As you describe the attempt to arrest Big
Snake, "the struggle continued with doubtful odds, until a
soldier, from a position prearranged for the purpose, put an
end to it by a ball which pierced the brain of the victim. "
94 The Writings of
No man can read your speech, which, as I am informed
by the best possible authority, was not the product of
momentary excitement, but a coolly and carefully pre
pared and elaborated effort, printed and sent several
days before its delivery to the newspapers of your State,
without receiving the impression that you mean to hold
this Department of the Government responsible for the
murder, not as a mere accidental consequence of a hand-
to-hand struggle incident to an attempted arrest, but as a
concerted and prearranged act, designed to rid the De
partment of a troublesome opponent of its policy. You go
even so far as to add: "Indeed, the whole thing has been
so in accordance with the ordinary mode of transacting
Indian affairs, or the life of an Indian is counted of so
little consequence, that when inquired about concerning
it by the Senate of the United States, the Interior Depart
ment forgot for nearly a year to answer the inquiry at all,
and did not think it worth while to express an opinion
upon its character. "
If this means anything pertinent to this case it can only
be that the ordinary method of transacting Indian affairs
in this Department is to murder men unless they fall in
with its official policy, and that by it the life of an Indian
is considered a matter of small moment.
I must confess that when reading this atrocious state
ment I could not repress a feeling of indignation ; but upon
mature reflection it became clear to me that the outrage
of so revolting an insinuation had passed the line which
separates the sublime from the ridiculous. Senator
Kirkwood characterized it by the following quiet remark,
on the floor of the Senate:
Now, whether the Senator desired to be understood as
wishing to convey the impression that this had been a pre
arranged plan beforehand to kill the man, that this soldier
i88i] Carl Schurz 95
had been stationed there for the purpose and that the strug
gle was a pretense to give him the opportunity of doing it, I
do not know. If that was the intention of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Dawes) I can say that he was mistaken;
he was mistaken in the facts, and that he has allowed his
feelings in this matter to becloud his judgment.
Senator Kirkwood, being conversant with all the cir
cumstances of the occurrence, no doubt stated them cor
rectly. If he erred in anything it was, perhaps, that he
thought your judgment might have been clouded by your
feelings.
I should not forget to mention that when Senator Logan,
himself a warm advocate of the red man's rights and
interests, indignant at the insinuations thrown out by
you, proclaimed his opinion that the officer now at the
head of the Interior Department had conducted the affairs
intrusted to his charge wisely and justly, and should not
be assailed in such a manner, you had the good grace to
say: " Neither here nor elsewhere has a single word ever
fallen from my lips in disparagement of the general policy
of the Indian department or its head toward the Indians.
On frequent occasions here and before the public at home
I have taken occasion to commend it, with the exception
of this particular transaction with regard to the Poncas. "
With this admission, then, it would seem that the chief
of the Interior Department is, in your opinion, on the
whole a good public officer who only occasionally, when he
takes it into his head to oppress an Indian tribe, will plot
or connive at the assassination of men who stand in his
way.
You find yourself compelled to say at last : " No one has
charged, I have not charged the head of this Department
with the commission of these wrongs." This is charac
teristic. No, you did not mention me directly, holding
96 The Writings of [i88i
me personally responsible, but with skilful use of lan
guage you insinuated the meaning without undertaking
to use the straightforward expression, and I fear many will
think that the latter would have been more manly than
the former. But if there could be any doubt as to the
real meaning you desired to convey, that doubt is solved
by a remark in which you rise to the true level of your
greatness. It deserves to be recorded.
You said: "It has been a relief to me, however, in
examining our treatment of these weak and defenseless
people to find that these methods are not American in
their origin, but bear too striking a resemblance to the
modes of an imperial government carried on by espionage
and arbitrary power. They are methods which I believe
to be unique and which I trust will not be naturalized."
You have succeeded in making yourself understood.
From the Pequot war to our days there never was an
Indian unjustly killed in this country until a German-born
American citizen became Secretary of the Interior. All
has been peace, love and fraternity. The red man has
for three centuries reposed securely upon the gentle
bosom of his white brother, and no man to make him
afraid, until this dangerous foreigner in an evil hour for
the Republic was clothed with authority to disturb
that harmonious accord and to disgrace the American
name with espionage in Indian camps, and the blood of
slaughtered victims; and all this he did in an effort to
naturalize on American soil the dark and cruel methods
of imperial governments, of which this foreigner notori
ously is, and has always been, a faithful and ardent
worshipper and champion. And, "it is a relief" to your
patriotic soul that there is hope this wicked naturalization
scheme will never succeed. It is pleasant to reflect that
there is one man at least among us who even under such
threatening circumstances will not despair of the Republic.
Carl Schurz 97
Next to plotting against the life of an Indian, you accuse
me of not furnishing the correspondence upon the case of
Big Snake asked for by the Senate, within ten months of
the call. You say that "the Interior Department forgot
for nearly a year to answer the inquiry. " I informed you
officially on the 5th of January of this year that when the
resolution of the Senate on the I2th of March, 1880, was
delivered at this Department, it was forthwith referred
to the Indian Office, with special directions for report;
that by some accident the report did not take its regular
way through the Interior Department to the Senate ; that
it is probable the late chief clerk of the Indian Office,
Mr. Brooks, took it before your committee for the inves
tigation of the Ponca case, rather in order to expedite
than to delay it. This official statement, showing that
the inquiry was not forgotten for ten months, should have
been considered sufficient among gentlemen.
The circumstance of such an accidental delay would be
treated as a very insignificant affair by any statesman of
average size. After having received from a Cabinet
Minister an explanation such as I gave, he would decently
accept that explanation without further comment. But
with this official statement before you, you repeated time
and again in the course of your remarks, "that the In
terior Department forgot for nearly ten months to answer
the inquiry at all"; that I "had even forgotten that the
inquiry had been made, " etc.
Since with characteristic zeal you thus insist upon
magnifying so small an affair into importance, you will
not object if I inquire into the candor and ingenuousness
of your reasoning. I affirm that the inquiry was not
forgotten, not only not for ten months, but not for a day.
The question arises: Did you not know that it was not
forgotten? The record of the session of the Senate Com
mittee inquiring into the Ponca case, of which you are a
VOL. IV. — 7
98 The Writings of
member, held on March 20, 1880, shows that Mr. Brooks,
the chief clerk of the Indian Office, was before you for
examination. You asked him: "Were you requested to
furnish the Committee with copies of any papers that might
be in the Indian Office bearing upon the killing of Big
Snake?" He answered, "I was, and I have them here. "
You asked him further: "Do they contain anything
additional to what has already been testified to before the
Committee?" The answer was: "Really my time has
been so fully occupied that I have not had time to examine
them, and cannot say whether they contain anything
additional or not. "
From this it appears that Mr. Brooks had before the
Committee copies of the papers existing in the Indian
Office bearing upon that case, and that you were aware of
it ten months ago. But to obtain the greatest possible
certainty as to the delivery of the papers I asked Mr.
Brooks, (who is at present in Florida, no longer in the
public service,) by telegraph, for his recollections of this
matter, and received the following reply :
FERNANDINA, FLA., Feb. 5, 1881.
Hon. CARL SCHURZ,
Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C.:
At Mr. Dawes's request made full copies of Big Snake papers
and tendered them to him at meeting of Committee. He
suggested that there might be others and asked me to hold
them prepared until search was made. Found nothing, and
at subsequent date, at conclusion of meeting of Committee,
gave him all the papers in the case, together with some data
concerning Cheyennes. I and he know it.
E. J. BROOKS.
The record of the investigating Committee and the
dispatch of Mr. Brooks support one another so strongly
as to remove all reasonable doubt.
i88i] Carl Schurz 99
And now, it being clear that the papers were delivered
into your hands ten months ago, you undertake to charge
the Interior Department with having for ten months
forgotten to answer the inquiry and you iterate and reiter
ate that charge. The question is no longer whether the
Interior Department forgot to furnish those papers, but
what you did with them after they had been furnished!
I will charitably suppose that your memory is not long
enough for the business you are engaged in; for without
such an explanation it would appear that you show a
dangerous readiness to overcome ordinary scruples in an
eager desire to make small points.
But you venture a step farther the effect of which you
have probably not calculated beforehand. You say in
the debate following your prepared speech:
I have complained of them [these wrongs] to him [the
head of the Interior Department] and before the public, and
entreated him to take hold of this thing himself and leave
upon the records of the country not only that he had no part
or lot in this great crime, but that he disapproved of it.
This very action of the Senate itself — this resolution that he
forgot to answer for ten months — I implored, myself, the In
dian Bureau to so answer that it would leave upon the records
of the country the disapproval of it — that disapproval which
they were free enough to give me in private.
Here I find myself and the Indian Office accused of hav
ing resisted your personal entreaties and implorations.
Do you undertake to say to me, Senator Dawes, that
you, personally, have ever complained of these wrongs to
me and "entreated me to take hold of this work myself"?
Do you mean it to be understood that you implored, your
self, the Indian Bureau or any officer thereof "so to answer
that it would leave upon the records of the country the
disapproval of it, which they were free enough to give you
ioo The Writings of
in private"? I have made inquiry of this subject and I
have been informed that there is no man in the Interior
Department to-day who can remember you ever to have
spoken to him upon this matter except in questions asked
in the proceedings of the Committee of investigation.
And as to myself — and I wish you to understand me
clearly — whatever speeches you may have made elsewhere,
you never approached me, personally, upon this subject
either by way of entreaty or otherwise.
You know, and the country knows, that I was the first
man, in 1877, frankly and without disguise, to lay the
hardships suffered by the Poncas before Congress and the
public. You know that in 1878 I submitted to Congress
and the public the report of the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, repeating the story of their wrongs. You know
that in 1879 again I recurred to it in strong language in
my official report, and that a bill for indemnifying the
Poncas was submitted to Congress, during the preceding
session. During all these years you sat in the Senate of
the United States, and not a word from you was heard in
response to the entreaties, not which you made to me, but
which I officially made to you as a member of the highest
legislative body of the Republic.
The recommendations I made to remedy the wrong done,
and which now are asked for by the Poncas in the Indian
Territory themselves, might not then have met your
approval; but they should at least have attracted your
attention and reminded you of your power as a legislator,
as well as your duty, to change them so as, in your opinion,
to meet the requirements of right and justice. Not a
word was heard from you. I may in charity go so far as
to say that these reports and recommendations may have
escaped your notice as they escaped the notice of many
others who did not take special interest in the subject, and
that only when your constituents in Massachusetts began
i88i] Carl Schurz 101
to hold meetings upon this matter you thought it worth
your while to take an interest in the grievances of the
Poncas which ever since have so violently agitated you.
But might it not be supposed that a man so profoundly in
earnest as you are, would at least then have spared no
trouble and lost no opportunity to make his views heard
by those immediately in charge of this business? You
know that the Interior Department was open to you and
you did not fail to avail yourself of your opportunities.
Indeed you were seen in the Interior Department during
the time that this agitation was going on and while you
were taking in it an active and conspicuous part. It is
also remembered, not only by myself, but by others in
this Department, if you made any entreaties at all, what
the subject of those entreaties was. While you desire the
country in general, and I suppose your constituents in
particular, to understand that your heart was overflowing
with philanthropic emotions concerning the downtrodden
Indian, and that the wrongs of the Poncas uncontrollably
disturbed your night's sleep, the subject of all your en
treaties in the Interior Department is recorded in a dozen
or two of applications for office urged by you and filed
with your name during that period of your new-born
anguish about the red man.
I do not mean to blame you here for soliciting places
and favors in this Department or elsewhere ; but when you
have come for that only, then you must not tell me and
the public that you came with implorations for the poor
Poncas and that I coldly received your appeals.
Permit me now to say that your exposition of the mur
der of Big Snake and the connection of the Interior
Department with it, as made in your prepared speech;
your burst of eloquence on the naturalization of the
methods of imperial government; your reiterated charge
that I for ten months forgot to answer an inquiry con-
102 The Writings of [1881
cerning it ; your proclamation of the zeal with which you
in vain intreated me and others to rectify the wrong, are
fair specimens of the spirit with which this agitation has
been carried on for many months, not only by you but by
others.
I know that many honest and sincere philanthropic men
and women have taken a warm interest in the fate of that
poor tribe, and have endeavored to do the best they knew
to procure the redress of the hardships it had suffered, and
for this I sincerely honor them. But it is also true, and a
very large portion of the American people, witnessing this
agitation, are now becoming aware of it, that agitators of
a different class have endeavored to turn the movement
for the benefit of Indians into one for the blackening of
the character of one they choose to represent as a tyranni
cal oppressor. A new illustration has been furnished of
the fact that it is difficult to exaggerate the malignant
unscrupulousness of the speculator in philanthropy hunt
ing for a sensation. And once more has it become appar
ent how easily it happens that honest people, following
such lead with the dangerous assurance of half know
ledge, permit themselves to be made tools for the pursuit
of questionable ends. While, ever since my accession to
office, I may say without a boast, I was honestly endeavor
ing to do the best I could for the Indian race, I have been
held up for many months as a heartless tyrant, oppressing
hundreds of suffering men, women and children.
What I permitted myself to say was strictly in self-
defense. But the fact that I first called attention to their
grievances was discarded without notice. The reason I
gave for not recommending the return of the Poncas to
their old homes in the winter of 1877, when, from their
own statements, I had first learned to appreciate the
true nature of the case, consisted in the danger of thereby
provoking another Sioux war, and possibly with it the
i88i] Carl Schurz 103
destruction of the Ponca tribe and the devastation of a
large expanse of country. That opinion was shared by
some of the wisest philanthropists of the country as well
as men long experienced in Indian affairs. It was thrown
aside as unworthy of attention. My anxiety that the
removal of the Ponca settlement in the Indian Territory
in the face of the invasion of that Territory by lawless
intruders might, by inviting and facilitating the invasion,
bring on a great danger for the peace and welfare of many
peaceable tribes there, was treated as a ridiculous whim.
The public were told again and again that the land
occupied by the Poncas in the Indian Territory was a
malarious swamp upon which the Indians were rapidly
perishing by disease ; that they had already lost from one-
fourth to one-half of their number; that they could not
and would not gain a living there by agriculture and other
labor ; that the whole tribe would be in their graves before
becoming acclimated or in any manner contented with
their situation; that the Poncas had been for four years
shut out from all correspondence with the outside world,
while they are known to be constantly visiting the nearest
town in Kansas with their wagons, freighting and trading ;
that the agent controlled them with his "white police,"
while the police force consisted exclusively of Ponca
Indians, no white man among them. Whenever I hinted
that I saw reason to think otherwise, such utterances
were treated as unscrupulous falsehoods coming from a
heartless oppressor.
At last, in October, 1880, the Poncas in the Indian
Territory, by a letter addressed to the Indian Office, sig
nified their desire to remain in the Indian Territory and
to relinquish all their right to their old Dakota lands.
That letter, having been published, was treated by men
high in station as the product of fraud, cajolery or other
iniquitous contrivances.
104 The Writings of
In December last the Ponca chiefs came here. They
repeated the expression of the desire of their people to
remain where they were located, in unequivocal and
earnest language. Then it was said that their friends,
who wanted to ascertain their true sentiments, were
arbitrarily denied access to them, and that when in council
the Ponca chiefs manifested their adherence to the desire
expressed in their letter, they were doing so quailing under
the "hard look" of an Indian agent and the overawing
presence of the Interior Department.
At last a commission named by the President, one-half
of its members designated by the Ponca relief committee
of Boston, went to the Indian Territory and saw the
Poncas in their new homes. The Indians assembled in
council. All white men except the commissioners were
rigidly excluded from the meeting. The hard-looking
eye of the agent was absent. The overawing influence of
the Interior Department was far away and carefully shut
out. The commission had even called to their aid a
missionary known to the Poncas as an old friend, and as
a strenuous opponent of their removal from their lands
in Dakota. Nothing was left undone that the sharpest
critic of the Interior Department and the most watchful
friends of the Poncas could desire. They were plied with
questions addressing themselves to every impulse of dis
satisfaction and greed, questions which might be looked
upon as direct appeals to induce them to express a desire
to return to Dakota. After the first day of the council
the Indians were told to take another day and then to
answer again. And what was the result? There had
been more misapprehension of the facts assiduously
fostered, more downright falsehood persistently reiterated
with regard to this case than upon any similar subject
that I can remember. The truth at last appeared coming
from the lips of the Indians themselves.
Carl Schurz 105
Was the expression of their desire to remain in the
Indian Territory genuine, or the result of fraud? Was
their land a malarious swamp in which they must all per
ish? Did they think the land was worse or better than
their land in Dakota? Were they well cared for in the
way of houses? Had they been bribed by promises or
were they induced by pecuniary considerations to resolve
to stay in the Indian Territory? Had the chiefs spoken
for themselves alone, or had they represented their people?
This the Indians themselves have answered. These are
the salient features of the testimony reported by the
Commissioners :
FIRST COUNCIL
The agreement signed in Washington was read :
General Crook. — Now if this expresses the wishes of all who
are here, they are to say so, and if not, they are to say not.
Answer for all. — We all hear and understand it. (The
chiefs and all others of the Poncas at this point consulted.)
General Crook. — Those who agree to it are to hold up their
hands — men, women and children.
(A general showing of hands.)
General Crook. — If there are any who don't agree to it, let
them hold up their hands.
(No reply.)
Mr. Allen. — Ask him if he thinks this land is better than his
old land.
White Eagle. — I think this land is a better land; that it is
improving. Whatever we plant will come up.
Mr. Allen. — If the Great Father wanted to send you back
there and give you all you had before, would you want to go
or stay?
White Eagle.— If the Great Father should make that for
me, I should think he 'd have me wandering around; and for
io6 The Writings of
that reason, I should be unwilling to go and should want to
remain here.
Mr. Allen. — If the Great Father should give him a strong
paper for the land, would he be willing to go back there and
remain permanently?
White Eagle. — I would remain here. The matter is finished
and so I '11 sit here.
Mr. Allen. — Ask him if the houses they have here are as
good as those they had in the old home.
White Eagle. — We think that these houses here are a little
good. Those houses up there were bad — they had dirt roofs.
These are better than the others.
Mr. Allen. — Do they raise as large crops as they did up
there?
White Eagle. — In that land there were insects that destroyed
the crops; in this land there are no insects (grasshoppers).
General Miles. — I want to ask a few questions here. I
want to inquire what is the condition of the tribe at present
as regards health.
White Eagle. — Counting this winter makes the third season
we have not been sick.
General Miles. — Has there been much sickness in the tribe
since they came to this territory?
White Eagle. — For two seasons there was sickness.
General Miles. — Do they find this country as healthy as
that they left up there? Have they during the past three
years been as healthy as they were during the three before
they came down?
White Eagle. — From the time the sickness stopped I have
been walking here and find it very good. I put this country
before the other — find it healthier.
General Miles. — Ask them if there is any sickness now?
White Eagle. — No, sir, I think not.
SECOND COUNCIL
General Miles. — He stated yesterday that the last three
seasons his people were healthy. I want to know whether he
Carl Schurz 107
is aware whether last year was an unusually dry season or
an ordinary season?
White Eagle. — When we came to this country we were sick
because we were not accustomed to the warm weather, but
now we are used to it and are better and think we will like it.
General Miles. — I understood them to say that no threats
had been made to induce them to change their minds. Now
I want to know what effect the promises and assurances made
to him and his people have had upon his people in bringing
about this change of mind.
White Eagle. — We were dwelling in this land and doing
nothing and were foolish as it were ; so we assembled together
and sent a letter to the Great Father, asking him to send for
us. We did this of our own accord ; nobody caused it.
General Miles (upon suggestion of Mr. Stickney). — Don't
they remember that the Secretary told them when this affair
came before him he would recommend it to the favorable
action of Congress, but he himself had nothing to do with
making the appropriations?
Answer from all. — We so understood it.
General Miles. — In case Congress fails to appropriate
$90,000 but allows them to remain here without the $90,000,
what effect will that have upon the tribe?
Standing Buffalo. — Even if they did not wish to give us
that money, we should wish to remain here and work for
ourselves.
Mr. Stickney. — Does he speak for all ?
Answer from all. — We speak with one heart.
General Miles. — If no money is appropriated, but the
privilege granted of remaining here or going back to their
old homes, how many would remain here and how many go
back to Dakota, supposing it to be optional with them and
they to be perfectly free to do as they pleased?
Standing Buffalo. — We think that if we went back to
Niobrara we would receive no tools and no rations, and so
we would prefer to remain here.
General Miles. — But supposing they received the same
treatment in every way, houses, tools, rations, everything at
io8 The Writings of
Niobrara as here, what then would they do? I want to get at
the bottom of their hearts in this thing.
Standing Buffalo. — Even if the Great Father should give
us all those things up there, we would fear wandering around
and would prefer to stay here.
General Miles. — Ask White Eagle.
White Eagle. — I think the same.
General Miles. — Ask him if he is sure that all his people
think the same about this as he does.
White Eagle. — Even if the Great Father is willing it is a
very abominable thing for us to be going about doing nothing,
and so we want to stay here.
General Miles. — Is he sure that all his camp think the same
way?
Mr. Stickney. — Does he know anybody of a different
opinion ?
White Eagle. — All are of one opinion.
General Miles. — If there is any man in this room who would
go back to Dakota if assured the Great Father would grant the
same privileges as now given here and they should not be
disturbed, let him speak out; if he would want to spend the
remainder of his days there with a firm title to his land and
the conditions the same.
Peter Primaud (Chief of Police) . — If the Great Father was
to say to me "Go! you can go back to that place" — even if he
was to give me $20,000, I would not go.
Standing Yellow. — What these chiefs say, they say for us
and we agree to.
Bear's Ear. — We young men sent the chiefs to Washington
and they have come back with good news. I have put a big
stone down here and will sit upon it. I prefer to stay here.
General Miles. — In case the Great Father shall decide to
give those up there a paper as strong as this restoring their
land to them and shall decide to send the $90,000 to those up
there, I want to know how many of these here would wish to
go back there or whether they would wish to remain here
without the $90,000.
Standing Buffalo. — Even if he did n't give us the money, we
i88i] Carl Schurz 109
would all be willing to stay here; but why should he not give
us the money?
Big Bull. — I give my assent to all the chiefs have said at
this meeting. I want to stay here and have a farm of 160
acres for myself. We all have heard what the chiefs said very
plainly, and agree to it all.
That the Poncas once desired to return to Dakota
nobody disputes. But what is their condition, what
are their wishes now?
Nothing can be clearer that not only does it not need
any money to induce them to stay in the Indian Territory,
but that no money could induce them now to go away;
that the tribe did not declare their willingness to stay
because the chiefs had " touched the pen" binding them
selves to do so ; but that the chiefs had touched the pen
because the tribe was determined to stay.
I had confidently expected and predicted that the
Poncas, after the first experiences of a new settlement,
would become aware of its advantages and then remain
comfortable, contented and prosperous. Who will deny
now that my expectations and predictions have been fully
justified by the result?
When the commission had made their report it appeared
that these important facts were clouded in language so
obscure as to be scarcely discernible.
I asked the chairman of the Senate Committee investi
gating the Ponca case to have the commissioners called
before them in order to resolve that obscurity into clear
ness. The chairman asked me in writing to be present.
The meeting of the Committee was public — Mr. Tibbies,
Bright Eyes, several ladies with them and several journal
ists being in attendance. Two members of the President's
commission were there as witnesses to be examined. I
asked for permission to put questions to them and that
no The Writings of
permission was granted. Having read the testimony
accompanying the report of the commissioners I knew
what had happened, but the commissioners knew it also.
The questions I addressed to them clearly revealed the
fact that the Poncas in the Indian Territory were found
by the commission unanimous and enthusiastic in their
desire to stay; that they resisted every temptation of
money held out to them to move; that they found their
lands fertile, their health good and their general condition
comfortable, with the hope of greater prosperity than they
had had in their old homes. The clear ascertainment of
these facts was the result of the examination before the
investigating Committee. That result was published in
the papers, and I here affirm emphatically the truthfulness
of the report. And then, Senator Dawes, in a card
skillfully worded to break the force of that publication,
you appeared before the public stating that "the character
as well as the significance" of the examination had been
misrepresented. You know, as well as I do, that the re
port as published by the Associated Press was truthful in
all that it stated, more than fair to you and one of the
witnesses, and that no essential feature was left out,
except, perhaps, some questions and answers the pub
lication of which would have revealed only the distress
of one of the witnesses examined, and the efforts of one
of the examiners to come to his relief. That was the
character of the report. And what was its significance?
Its significance is plainly stated in the President's message
in the following words :
The commission in its conclusions omit to state the im
portant fact as to the present condition of the Poncas in the
Indian Territory, but the evidence they have reported shows
clearly and conclusively that the Poncas now residing in that
Territory, 521 in number, are satisfied with their new homes;
i88i] Carl Schurz in
that they are healthy, comfortable and contented, and that
they are freely and firmly decided to adhere to the choice
announced in the letter of October 25, 1880, and the declara
tion of December 17, 1880, to remain in the Indian Territory
and not to return to Dakota Territory.
That was the President's conclusion, and it was the
significance of the examination before your Committee
as published in the press report you impugned. You
know, sir, that this is true. The truth may have been
disagreeable to you, but nevertheless it is the truth, and
your card in the newspapers, calculated to discredit a
truthful report, is only a worthy companion of your
speech on the Big Snake case.
I fear, Senator Dawes, you have somewhat overreached
yourself. There are voices making themselves heard
among your constituents which show that fair play has
its friends among them as well as elsewhere. It may be
interesting to you to hear the remarks of the Boston
Journal, a strong Republican party paper, and certainly
not unfriendly to you. It said on the 2d of February :
Some time, when the heat of personal pique and prejudice
has had a chance to subside, we should like to have these
Ponca advocates tell us under what Secretary of the Interior
the Indians as a whole have been more kindly and humanely
treated than under Mr. Schurz; under whose administration
they have made more rapid progress in civilization; and who
has been more strenuous and earnest than Mr. Schurz in
promoting the education of the Indians, their material pros
perity and their advance toward the rights and responsibilities
of citizenship than he. If there is any merit in discovering
this Ponca question, it belongs to Mr. Schurz; for he had
drawn the attention of Congress to the wrong done the Poncas
before Mr. Tibbies and the Ponca Committee had ever shed
tears together. The Ponca Committee want to have lands
H2 The Writings of
assigned to the Poncas in severalty; Mr. Schurz wants this
done, not for the Poncas only, but for all the tribes. If the
philanthropic people who are so much concerned about the
Poncas were ever to see the Indian bureau managed in accord
ance with what is succinctly described as "the western idea, "
it would dawn upon their minds that they had not acted with
the highest wisdom in assailing with extreme vituperation an
administration of Indian affairs which has been, on the whole,
the cleanest, the most just and the most humane we have
had.
The Boston Herald and other journals speak in the
same vein.
While receiving with due diffidence these compliments,
which I have at least endeavored to deserve, I do expect
that the sincere philanthropists engaged in this movement
will in course of time justify the prediction.
Indeed, in the midst of this storm of vituperation which
has been conjured up against me, sober and candid minds
may stop once more to inquire what has caused this
virulent warfare, and what is to be the end of it. A
blunder was made in an Indian treaty years ago. A
wrong was committed against the Poncas. That wrong
was generally acknowledged, first by me. A remedy was
to be found. Charged with the responsibility of the con
duct of all Indian affairs, and having in view the whole
field, I proposed a remedy. Persons without that knowl
edge and responsibility proposed another. The remedy
I proposed was to do substantial justice and at the same
time avoid other and greater difficulties concerning the
peace, safety and interest of other numerous tribes of
Indians.
The remedy, demanded elsewhere, left out of view these
considerations and demanded abstract justice without
regard to the safety and interests of others. "Let jus
tice be done though the heavens fall" is a good cry for
i88i] Carl Schurz 113
the agitator, and scarcely ever fails to draw a round of
applause. To do, whenever possible, justice in such a
manner that the heavens do not fall, is the office of
government, for the falling of the heavens is apt to in
jure innocent parties. And now when I have been vili
fied without measure for months as the cruel oppressor
of the Poncas, it turns out that these Indians confess
themselves comfortable and contented; that they want
to stay where they are and cannot be bought to leave;
that their prospects of well-being are brighter than ever
before; and that if Congress wants to be just to the
Poncas in the Indian Territory according to their own
clearly expressed wishes, it will have to adopt substan
tially the identical recommendations submitted by this
Department two years ago. This is the solution I fore
saw, and the dangers and difficulties I wanted to avoid
have been avoided.
Permit me now to make an appeal for the Poncas to you,
Senator. Let these Indians at last have rest. Give
them the indemnity they justly ask for and which I asked
for them years ago. Let them quietly go about their
farms and improve their homes and send their children
to school, undisturbed by further agitation. That is the
best service you can render them. They would probably
be in a better condition already had that agitation never
reached them.
These are some of the things I should have said had I
been on the floor of the Senate to answer your speech. I
might say more now, and it will give me pleasure to do so,
if you desire to continue the conversation. This corre
spondence may possibly seem to you somewhat extraor
dinary ; but it cannot reasonably surprise you to find that,
as there must be some limit to the silence as well as the
patience of a Cabinet Minister, an attack like yours is apt
to encounter a defense like mine.
VOL. IV. — 8
ii4 The Writings of
FROM JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE
JAMAICA PLAIN, MASS., Feb. 17, 1881.
As a citizen of Massachusetts, and an old friend, I desire to
congratulate you on your able and satisfactory defense against
the charges made against you, in regard to the Indians —
charges which to me never had any sense or reason. I have
watched the whole course of the argument, and believe you to
have been the best friend the Indians have had. It is not
necessary for you to be told this — but it is gratifying to me to
say it.
With much respect, yours.
FROM EDWARD EGGLESTON
22 WASHINGTON SQUARE,
NEW YORK, Feb. 22, 1881.
I presume on our acquaintance, perhaps long since forgotten
by you, to tell you how much I admire the administration
of your Department, especially your wise and statesmanlike
management of Indian affairs. My long residence on the
frontier enables me to judge of the extreme difficulty which
attends every attempt to deal with the relations of savage
tribes to civilized life. I am sure that in the history of the
contact of the white with the red race, no such large-minded
wisdom has been shown as we have seen during your term of
office. The impulse of the philanthropists is good but it is
only in America that men presume to discuss a question of
practical statesmanship without making any serious effort to
understand it.
If I were a journalist, as formerly, I would gladly say these
things publicly, but I can only give myself the pleasure of
saying them to you — and I fear you will not greatly care to
hear them.
i88i] Carl Schurz 115
TO JAMES A. GARFIELD
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 1881.
Dear General : The enclosed J I found in the New York
Times, and considering the strong party character of that
paper, I thought it might be worth your while to read it
and to observe the drift of thought in it. It is unques
tionably right, and any political action based upon the
theory that the world is divided between two or three
political leaders and will be satisfied if they are harmon
ized, will certainly lead to great disappointments. How
much trouble you would save yourself by just picking out
the fittest man for each place and then going ahead to
make a good business Administration, thus winning the ap
proval and support of public opinion in spite of grumblers.
Pardon the intrusion. I do want to see you succeed.
FROM EX-PRESIDENT HAYES
FREMONT, O., March 10, 1881.
My dear General: A thousand thanks for your gratifying
letter. We are, and we shall be I hope always, more than
political friends — personal friends. Your interests, your
career, your family will be in my thoughts and heart. Let
it be so and let us enjoy it.
The two happiest people in the country are here in "Spiegel
Grove," where we hope to see you and yours often. Love to
the young folks. — Ever,
R. B. HAYES.
FREMONT, O., June I, 1881.
Is it true you are editing the Evening Post?2 I must see
what you write. If true, Mrs. Hayes will not forgive me if
1 Clipping entitled: "A Hint to Business Men."
2 Schurz was editor-in-chief of the New York Evening Post, 1881-83.
n6 The Writings of
she loses anything you write. Please tell your business
manager to put my name on his list for the tri-weekly, or
semi-weekly, or whatever edition will contain your editorials,
and send me the bill.
We are busy and happy — time passes swiftly and agreeably
— getting ready to live in our country home.
All sorts of non-paying public trusts of local significance,
merely, are piling up on my hands. I look out of the loop
holes, and see what I do see! and am content.
PRESENT ASPECTS OF THE INDIAN PROBLEM1
That the history of our Indian relations presents, in
great part, a record of broken treaties, of unjust wars and
of cruel spoliation, is a fact too well known to require
proof or to suffer denial. But it is only just to the Govern
ment of the United States to say that its treaties with
Indian tribes were, as a rule, made in good faith, and that
most of our Indian wars were brought on by circumstances
for which the Government itself could not fairly be held
responsible. Of the treaties, those were the most impor
tant by which the Government guaranteed to Indian
tribes certain tracts of land as reservations to be held and
occupied by them forever under the protection of the
United States, in the place of other lands ceded by the
Indians. There is no reason to doubt that in most, if not
all, of such cases, those who conducted Indian affairs on
the part of the Government, not anticipating the rapid
advance of settlement, sincerely believed in the possibility
of maintaining those reservations intact for the Indians,
and that, in this respect, while their intentions were
honest, their foresight was at fault. There are men still
living who spent their younger days near the borders of
"Indian country" in Ohio and Indiana, and it is a well-
1 North American Review, July, 1881.
i88i] Carl Schurz 117
known fact that, when the Indian Territory was established
west of the Mississippi, it was generally thought that the
settlements of white men would never crowd into that
region, at least not for many generations. Thus were
such reservations guaranteed by the Government with the
honest belief that the Indians would be secure in their
possession, which, as subsequent events proved, was a
gross error of judgment.
It is also a fact that most of the Indian wars grew, not
from any desire of the Government to disturb the Indians
in the territorial possessions guaranteed to them, but from
the restless and unscrupulous greed of frontiersmen who
pushed their settlements and ventures into the Indian
country, provoked conflicts with the Indians and then
called for the protection of the Government against the
resisting and retaliating Indians, thus involving it in the
hostilities which they themselves had begun. It is true
that in some instances Indian wars were precipitated by
acts of rashness and violence on the part of military men
without orders from the Government, while the popular
impression that Indian outbreaks were generally caused
by the villainy of Government agents, who defrauded and
starved the Indians, is substantially unfounded. Such
frauds and robberies have no doubt been frequently com
mitted. It has also happened that Indian tribes were
exposed to great suffering and actual starvation in con
sequence of the neglect of Congress to provide the funds
necessary to fulfil treaty stipulations. But things of
this kind resulted but seldom in actual hostilities. To
such wrongs the Indians usually submitted with a more
enduring patience than they receive credit for, although
in some instances, it must be admitted, outrages were
committed by Indians without provocation, which re
sulted in trouble on a large scale.
In mentioning these facts, it is not my purpose to hold
ii8 The Writings of
the Government entirely guiltless of the wrongs inflicted
upon the Indians. It has, undoubtedly, sometimes
lacked in vigor when Indian tribes needed protection. It
has, in many cases, yielded too readily to the pressure of
those who wanted to possess themselves of Indian lands.
Still less would I justify some high-handed proceedings
on the part of the Government in moving peaceable
Indian tribes from place to place without their consent,
trying to rectify old blunders by new acts of injustice.
But I desire to point out that by far the larger part of our
Indian troubles have sprung from the greedy encroach
ments of white men upon Indian lands, and that, hostili
ties being brought about in this manner, in which the
Indians uniformly succumbed, old treaties and arrange
ments were overthrown to be supplanted by new ones of
a similar character which eventually led to the same
results. In the light of events, the policy of assigning to
the Indian tribes large tracts of land as permanent reser
vations, within the limits of which they might continue
to roam at pleasure, with the expectation that they would
never be disturbed thereon, appears as a grand mistake,
a natural, perhaps even an unavoidable mistake in times
gone by, but a mistake for all that, for that policy failed
to take into account the inevitable pressure of rapidly
and irresistibly advancing settlement and enterprise.
While duly admitting and confessing the injustice done,
we must understand the real nature of the difficulty if
we mean to solve it.
No intelligent man will to-day for a moment entertain
the belief that there is still a nook or corner of this country
that has the least agricultural or mineral value in it,
beyond the reach of progressive civilization. Districts
which seemed to be remote wildernesses but a few years
ago have been or are now being penetrated by railroads:
Montana, Washington Territory, Idaho and New Mexico
Carl Schurz 119
are now more easily accessible than Ohio and Indiana
were at the beginning of this century, and the same process
which resulted in crowding the Indians out of these States
has begun and is rapidly going on in those Territories.
The settler and miner are beginning, or at least threatening,
to invade every Indian reservation that offers any attrac
tion, and it is a well-known fact that the frontiersman
almost always looks upon Indian lands as the most
valuable in the neighborhood, simply because the Indian
occupies them and the white man is excluded from them.
From the articles in the newspapers of those remote
Territories, it would sometimes appear as if, in the midst
of millions of untouched acres, the white people were
deprived of the necessary elbow-room as long as there is
an Indian in the country. At any rate, the settlers and
miners want to seize upon the most valuable tracts first,
and they are always inclined to look for them among
the lands of the Indians. The fact that wild Indians—
and here it is proper to say that when in this discussion
Indians are spoken of as "wild," and their habits of life
as "savage," these terms are not used in their extreme
sense, but as simply meaning "uncivilized," there being
of course among them, in that respect, a difference of
degrees — hold immense tracts of country which, possessed
by them, are of no advantage to anybody, while, as is
said, thousands upon thousands of white people stand
ready to cultivate them and to make them contribute to
the national wealth, is always apt to make an impression
upon minds not accustomed to nice discrimination. It
is needless to say that the rights of the Indians are a
matter of very small consideration in the eyes of those
who covet their possessions. The average frontiersman
looks upon the Indian simply as a nuisance that is in his
way. There are certainly men among them of humane
principles, but also many whom it would be difficult to
120 The Writings of Ii88i
convince that it is a crime to kill an Indian, or that to rob
an Indian of his lands is not a meritorious act. This
pressure grows in volume and intensity as the population
increases, until finally, in some way or another one
Indian reservation after another falls into the hands of
white settlers. Formerly, when this was accomplished,
the Indians so dispossessed were removed to other vacant
places farther westward. Now this expedient is no longer
open. The western country is rapidly filling up. A
steady stream of immigration is following the railroad
lines and then spreading to the right and left. The
vacant places still existing are either worthless or will
soon be exposed to the same invasion. The plains are
being occupied by cattle-raisers, the fertile valleys and
bottom-lands by agriculturists, the mountains by miners.
What is to become of the Indians?
In trying to solve this question, we have to keep in view
the facts here recited. However we may deplore the
injustice which these facts have brought, and are still
bringing, upon the red men, yet with these facts we have to
deal. They are undeniable. Sound statesmanship cannot
disregard them. It is true that the Indian reservations
now existing cover a great many millions of acres, con
taining very valuable tracts of agricultural, grazing and
mineral land; that the area now cultivated, or that can
possibly be cultivated by the Indians, is comparatively
very small ; that by far the larger portion is lying waste.
Is it not, in view of the history of more than two centuries,
useless to speculate in our minds how these many millions
of acres can be preserved in their present state for the
Indians to roam upon? — how the greedy push of settlement
and enterprise might be permanently checked for the
protection of the red man's present possessions, as hunting-
grounds upon which, moreover, there is now but very
little left to hunt? We are sometimes told that ours is
i88i] Carl Schurz 121
a powerful government, which might accomplish such
things if it would only put forth its whole strength. Is
this so? The Government is, indeed, strong in some
respects, but weak in others. It may be truthfully said
that the Government has never been intent upon robbing
the Indians. It has frequently tried, in good faith, to
protect them against encroachment, and almost as
frequently it has failed. It has simply yielded to the
pressure exercised upon it by the people who were in
immediate contact with the Indians. Those in authority
were, in most cases, drawn or driven into an active par
ticipation in conflicts not of their own making. When a
collision between Indians and whites had once occurred, no
matter who was responsible for it, and when bloody deeds
had been committed and an outcry about Indian atrocities
had been made, our military forces were always found on
the side of the white people and against the savage, no
matter whether those who gave the orders knew that the
savages were originally the victims and not the assailants.
Imagine, now, the Government were to proclaim that,
from the many millions of acres at present covered by
Indian reservations, white men should forever be excluded,
and that the National power should be exerted to that
end, what would be the consequence? For some time the
Government might succeed in enforcing such a resolution.
How long, would depend upon the rapidity with which
the western country is occupied by settlers. As the
settlements crowd upon the reservations, the popula
tion thickens, and the demand for larger fields of agri
cultural and mining enterprise becomes more pressing, the
Government may still remain true to its purpose. But
will those who are hungry for the Indian lands sit still?
It will be easy for the rough and reckless frontiersmen to
pick quarrels with the Indians. The speculators, who
have their eyes upon every opportunity for gain, will urge
122 The Writings of
them on. The watchfulness of the Government will, in
the long run, be unavailing to prevent collisions. The
Indians will retaliate. Settlers' cabins will be burned
and blood will flow. The conflict once brought on, the
white man and the red man will stand against one another,
and, in spite of all its good intentions and its sense of
justice, the forces of the Government will find themselves
engaged on the side of the white man. The Indians will
be hunted down at whatever cost. It will simply be a
repetition of the old story, and that old story will be
eventually repeated whenever there is a large and valuable
Indian reservation surrounded by white settlements.
Unjust, disgraceful, as this may be, it is not only probable,
but almost inevitable. The extension of our railroad
system will only accelerate the catastrophe.
We are frequently told that the management of Indian
affairs in Canada has been more successful than ours in
avoiding such conflicts. This appears to be true. But,
while giving credit to the Canadian authorities for the
superiority of their management in some respects, we
must not forget that they are working under conditions
far less difficult. The number of their Indians is much
less, and their unoccupied territory much larger. They
have still what may be called an Indian frontier — the
white men on one side of the line and the Indians on
the other, with vast hunting-grounds visited only by the
trapper and fur-trader. Their agricultural settlements
advance with far less rapidity than ours. There is far
less opportunity for encroachment. When in the British
possessions agricultural and mining enterprise spreads
with the same energy and eagerness as in the United
States, when railroads penetrate their Indian country,
when all that is valuable in it becomes thus accessible
and tempting to the greed of white men, when game
becomes scarce and ceases to furnish sufficient sustenance
i88i] Carl Schurz 123
to the Indians, the Canadian authorities in their manage
ment of Indian affairs will find themselves confronted
with the same difficulties.
What does, under such circumstances, wise and humane
statesmanship demand? Not that we should close our
eyes to existing facts ; but that, keeping those facts clearly
in view, we should discover among the possibilities that
which is most just and best for the Indians. I am pro
foundly convinced that a stubborn maintenance of the
system of large Indian reservations must eventually result
in the destruction of the red men, however faithfully
the Government may endeavor to protect their rights.
It is only a question of time. My reasons for this belief
I have given above. What we can and should do is, in
general terms, to fit the Indians, as much as possible, for
the habits and occupations of civilized life, by work and
education; to individualize them in the possession and
appreciation of property, by allotting to them lands in
several ty, giving them a fee- simple title individually to
the parcels of land they cultivate, inalienable for a certain
period, and to obtain their consent to a disposition of
that part of their lands which they cannot use, for a fair
compensation, in such a manner that they no longer
stand in the way of the development of the country as
an obstacle, but form part of it and are benefited by it.
The circumstances surrounding them place before the
Indians this stern alternative: extermination or civiliza
tion. The thought of exterminating a race, once the
only occupant of the soil upon which so many millions of
our own people have grown prosperous and happy, must
be revolting to every American who is not devoid of all
sentiments of justice and humanity. To civilize them,
which was once only a benevolent fancy, has now become
an absolute necessity, if we mean to save them.
Can Indians be civilized? This question is answered
124 The Writings of
in the negative only by those who do not want to civilize
them. My experience in the management of Indian
affairs, which enabled me to witness the progress made
even among the wildest tribes, confirms me in the belief
that it is not only possible but easy to introduce civilized
habits and occupations among Indians, if only the proper
means are employed. We are frequently told that Indians
will not work. True, it is difficult to make them work as
long as they can live upon hunting. But they will work
when their living depends upon it, or when sufficient in
ducements are offered to them. Of this there is an
abundance of proof. To be sure, as to Indian civilization,
we must not expect too rapid progress or the attainment
of too lofty a standard. We can certainly not transform
them at once into great statesmen, or philosophers, or
manufacturers, or merchants; but we can make them
small farmers and herders. Some of them show even
remarkable aptitude for mercantile pursuits on a small
scale. I see no reason why the degree of civilization
attained by the Indians in the States of New York, Indi
ana, Michigan and some tribes in the Indian Territory,
should not be attained in the course of time by all. I
have no doubt that they can be sufficiently civilized to
support themselves, to maintain relations of good neigh
borship with the people surrounding them, and altogether
to cease being a disturbing element in society. The
accomplishment of this end, however, will require much
considerate care and wise guidance. That care and guid
ance is necessarily the task of the Government which, as to
the Indians at least, must exercise paternal functions
until they are sufficiently advanced to take care of them
selves.
In this respect, some sincere philanthropists seem in
clined to run into a serious error in insisting that first of
all things it is necessary to give to the Indian the rights
i88i] Carl Schurz 125
and privileges of American citizenship, to treat him in all
respects as a citizen, and to relieve him of all restraints to
which other Americans citizens are not subject. I do not
intend to go here into a disquisition on the legal status of
the Indian, on which elaborate treatises have been written,
and learned judicial decisions rendered, without raising
it above dispute. The end to be reached is unquestion
ably the gradual absorption of the Indians in the great
body of American citizenship. When that is accomplished,
then, and only then, the legal status of the Indian will be
clearly and finally fixed. But we should not indulge in
the delusion that the problem can be solved by merely
conferring upon them rights they do not yet appreciate,
and duties they do not yet understand. Those who ad
vocate this seem to think that the Indians are yearning
for American citizenship, eager to take it if we will only
give it to them. No mistake could be greater. An over
whelming majority of the Indians look at present upon
American citizenship as a dangerous gift, and but few of
the more civilized are willing to accept it when it is at
tainable. And those who are uncivilized would certainly
not know what to do with it if they had it. The mere
theoretical endowment of savages with rights which are
beyond their understanding and appreciation will, there
fore, help them little. They should certainly have that
standing in the courts which is necessary for their protec
tion. But full citizenship must be regarded as the
terminal, not as the initial, point of their development.
The first necessity, therefore, is not at once to give it to
them, but to fit them for it. And to this end, nothing is
more indispensable than the protecting and guiding care
of the Government during the dangerous period of transi
tion from savage to civilized life. When the wild Indian
first turns his face from his old habits toward "the ways
of the white man, ' ' his self-reliance is severely shaken. The
126 The Writings of
picturesque and proud hunter and warrior of the plain or
the forest gradually ceases to exist. In his new occupa
tions, with his new aims and objects, he feels himself like a
child in need of leading-strings. Not clearly knowing
where he is to go, he may be led in the right direction,
and he may also be led astray. He is apt to accept the
vices as well as the virtues and accomplishments of civil
ization, and the former, perhaps, more readily than the
latter. He is as accessible to bad as to good advice or
example, and the class of people usually living in the im
mediate vicinity of Indian camps and reservations is
frequently not such as to exercise upon him an elevating
influence. He is in danger of becoming a drunkard before
he has learned to restrain his appetites, and of being
tricked out of his property before he is able to appreciate
its value. He is overcome by a feeling of helplessness,
and he naturally looks to the "Great Father" to take him
by the hand and guide him on. That guiding hand must
necessarily be one of authority and power to command
confidence and respect. It can be only that of the
Government, which the Indian is accustomed to regard
as a sort of omnipotence on earth. Everything depends
upon the wisdom and justice of that guidance.
To fit the Indians for their ultimate absorption in the
great body of American citizenship, three things are
suggested by common-sense as well as philanthropy.
1. That they be taught to work by making work profi
table and attractive to them.
2. That they be educated, especially the youth of
both sexes.
3. That they be individualized in the possession of
property by settlement in severalty with a fee-simple
title, after which the lands they do not use may be dis
posed of for general settlement and enterprise without
danger and with profit to the Indians.
i88i] Carl Schurz 127
This may seem a large program, strangely in contrast
with the old wild life of the Indians, but they are now
more disposed than ever before to accept it. Even those
of them who have so far been in a great measure living
upon the chase, are becoming aware that the game is fast
disappearing, and will no longer be sufficient to furnish
them a sustenance. In a few years the buffalo will be
exterminated, and smaller game is gradually growing
scarce except in the more inaccessible mountain regions.
The necessity of procuring food in some other way is
thus before their eyes. The requests of Indians addressed
to the Government for instruction in agriculture, for agri
cultural implements and for stock cattle are in conse
quence now more frequent and pressing than ever before.
A more general desire for the education of their children
springs from the same source, and many express a wish
for the allotment of farm tracts among them, with "the
white man's paper," meaning a good, strong title like
that held by white men. This progressive movement is,
of course, different in degree with different tribes, but it is
going on more or less everywhere. The failure of Sitting
Bull's attempt to maintain himself and a large number of
followers on our northern frontier in the old, wild ways
of Indian life will undoubtedly strengthen the tendency
among the wild Indians of the Northwest to recognize
the situation and to act accordingly. The general state
of feeling among the red men is therefore now exceedingly
favorable to the civilizing process.
Much has already been done in the direction above
indicated. The area of land cultivated by Indians is
steadily extended, and the quantity and value of their
crops show a hopeful increase from year to year. Many
Indians are already showing commendable pride in the
product of their labor. Much more, however, might be
done by the Government to facilitate and encourage
128 The Writings of
this progress, by making larger appropriations for the
appointment of men competent to instruct the Indians
in agricultural work, and for furnishing them with farm
ing implements. Unfortunately, members of Congress
are frequently more intent upon making a good record in
cutting down expenses in the wrong place, than upon
providing the necessary money for objects the accom
plishment of which would finally result in real and great
economy. It may be remarked, by the way, that the
promotion of agricultural work among the Indians is fre
quently discouraged by well-meaning men who reason
upon the theory that in the transition from savage to
civilized life, the pastoral state comes before the agri
cultural, and that the Indians, therefore, must be made
herders before they can be made farmers. This theory
is supported by historical precedents. It is true that the
transition from the savage state to the pastoral is less vio
lent than that from the savage state directly to the agricul
tural, but this does not prove that the latter is impossible.
Moreover, the former requires certain favorable conditions,
one of which is not only the possession of large tracts of
grazing land but also of large numbers of cattle ; and an
other is, that the transition, which would necessarily require
a considerable time, be not interfered with by extraneous
circumstances. There are only a few isolated instances
of Indian tribes having devoted themselves successfully
to the raising of herds and flocks, such as the Navajoes,
who have hundreds of thousands of sheep, and manu
facture excellent blankets by hand. Some thrifty In
dians on the Pacific coast have raised small herds of
cattle, and something more has been done by the so-
called civilized tribes in the Indian Territory. The rest of
the Indians have only raised ponies. To make all our wild
Indians herders, would require the maintenance of the
system of large reservations which, as I have shown, will
i88i] Carl Schurz 129
be a precarious thing under the pressure of advancing
settlement and enterprise. It would further require the
distribution among them of large numbers of stock animals.
Such distributions have been gradually increased, but
even among the tribes best provided for, only to the
extent of giving to each family one or two cows, and I see
no prospect, with the resources likely to be at the disposal
of the Indian service, of carrying this practice much fur
ther than to make it more general among all the tribes.
But the possession of a cow or two will not make a man a
herder. And even if the number were increased, and the
cattle belonging to the members of a tribe were herded to
gether for the purpose of regular cattle-raising, that pursuit
would require the constant labor of only a small number
of individuals, while, under existing circumstances, it is
most desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that all of
them, or at least as many as possible, be actively and
profitably employed, so as to accelerate the civilizing pro
cess. To this end it seems indispensable that agricul
tural work be their principal occupation. But we need not
be troubled by any misgivings on this head. The reports
of early explorers show that most of our Indian tribes,
without having passed through the pastoral state, did
cultivate the soil in a rough way and on a small scale when
first seen by white men, and that subsequently they con
tinued that pursuit to a greater or less extent, even while
they were driven from place to place. The promotion
of agricultural work among them will therefore only be a
revival and development of an old practice. The progress
they now make shows how naturally they take to it. And
if the Government, as it should, continues to furnish them
with domestic animals, cattle-raising in a small way may
become, not their principal business, but a proper and
valuable addition to their agricultural work. I have no
doubt, however, that young Indians may be profitably
VOL. rv. — 9
130 The Writings of
employed by the cattle-raisers of the West, as mounted
herdsmen or "cow-boys." If paid reasonable wages,
they would probably be found very faithful and efficient
in that capacity.
Other useful occupations for which the Indians show
great aptitude have been introduced with promising
success. They are now doing a very large part of the
freighting of government goods, such as their own supplies
and annuities. " Indian freighting," on a large scale,
was introduced only a few years ago, at almost all the
agencies, especially on this side of the Rocky Mountains,
which are not immediately accessible by railroad or river.
The Indians use their own ponies as draught animals,
while the Government furnishes the wagons and harness.
The Indians have, by this industry, already earned large
sums of money, and proved the most honest and efficient
freighters the Government ever had. There is no reason
why, in the course of time, they should not be largely
engaged by the Government, as well as private parties,
in the transportation of other than Indian goods.
That Indians can be successfully employed at various
kinds of mechanical work, has already been sufficiently
tested. A respectable number of their young men serve
as apprentices in the saddler, blacksmith, shoemaker,
tinsmith and carpenter shops at the agencies in the West,
as well as at the Indian schools, and their proficiency is
much commended. The school at Carlisle has been able
to furnish considerable quantities of tin-ware, harness
and shoes, all made by Indian labor, and, in some of
the saw-mills and grist-mills on the reservations, Indians
are employed as machinists with perfect safety. Many
Indians who, but a few years ago, did nothing but hunt
and fight, are now engaged in building houses for their
families, and, with some instruction and aid on the part
of the Government, they are doing reasonably well. Here
Carl Schurz 131
and there an Indian is found who shows striking ability
as a trader. All these things are capable of large and
rapid development, if pushed forward and guided with
wisdom and energy. All that is said here refers to the
so-called wild tribes, such as the Sioux, the Shoshones,
Poncas, Cheyennes, Arrapahoes, Pawnees etc. The
significant point is that, recognizing the change in their
situation, Indian men now almost generally accept work
as a necessity, while formerly all the drudgery was done
by their women. The civilized tribes in the Indian Terri
tory and elsewhere have already proved their capacity
for advancement in a greater measure.
One of the most important agencies in the civilizing
process is, of course, education in schools. The first step
was the establishment on the reservations of day-schools
for Indian children. The efforts made by the Government
in that direction may not always have been efficiently
conducted; but it is also certain that, in the nature of
things, the result of that system could not be satisfactory.
With the exception of a few hours spent in school, the
children remained exposed to the influence of their more
or less savage home surroundings, and the indulgence of
their parents greatly interfered with the regularity of
their attendance and with the necessary discipline.
Boarding-schools at the agencies were then tried, as far
as the appropriations made by Congress would permit,
adding to the usual elementary education some practical
instruction in housework and domestic industries. The
results thus obtained were perceptibly better, but even
the best boarding-schools located on Indian reservations,
in contact with no phase of human life except that of the
Indian camp or village, still remain without those con
ditions of which the work of civilizing the growing Indian
generation stands most in need.
The Indian, in order to be civilized, must not only
132 The Writings of U88i
learn how to read and write but how to live. On most
of the Indian reservations he lives only among his own
kind, excepting the teachers and the few white agency
people. He may feel the necessity of changing his mode
of life ever so strongly; he may hear of civilization ever
so much ; but as long as he has not with his own eyes seen
civilization at work, it will remain to him only a vague,
shadowy idea — a new-fangled, outlandish contrivance,
the objects of which cannot be clearly appreciated by him
in detail. He hears that he must accept " the white man's
way," and, in an indistinct manner, he is impressed
with the necessity of doing so. But what is the white
man's way? What ends does it serve? What means
does it employ? What is necessary to attain it? The
teaching in a school on an Indian reservation, in the midst
of Indian barbarism, answers these questions only from
hearsay. The impressions it thus produces, whether in
all things right or in some things wrong, will, in any event,
be insufficient to give the mind of the Indian a clear con
ception of what "the white man's way" really is. The
school on the reservation undoubtedly does some good,
but it does not enough. If the Indian is to become civil
ized, the most efficient method will be to permit him to
see and watch civilization at work in its own atmosphere.
In order to learn to live like the white man, he should see
and observe how the white man lives in his own surround
ings, what he is doing, and what he is doing it for. He
should have an opportunity to observe, not by an occa
sional bewildering glimpse, like the Indians who now and
then come to Washington to see the "Great Father,"
but observe with the eye of an interested party, while
being taught to do likewise.
Such considerations led the Government, under the
last Administration, largely to increase the number of
Indian pupils at the Normal School at Hampton, Va.,
i88i] Carl Schurz 133
and to establish an institution for the education of
Indian children at Carlisle, in Pennsylvania, where the
young Indians would no longer be under the influence
of the Indian camp or village, but in immediate contact
with the towns, farms and factories of civilized people,
living and working in the atmosphere of civilization. In
these institutions, the Indian children, among whom a
large number of tribes are represented, receive the ordi
nary English education, while there are various shops and
a farm for the instruction of the boys, and the girls are kept
busy in the kitchen, dining-room, sewing-room and with
other domestic work. In the summer, as many as possi
ble of the boys are placed in the care of intelligent and
philanthropic farmers and their families, mostly in
Pennsylvania and New England, where they find instruc
tive employment in the field and barnyard. The pupils
are, under proper regulations, permitted to see as much
as possible of the country and its inhabitants in the
vicinity of the schools.
The results gained at these institutions are very strik
ing. The native squalor of the Indian boys and girls
rapidly gives way to neat appearance. A new intelli
gence, lighting up their faces, transforms their expression.
Many of them show an astonishing eagerness to learn,
quickness of perception, pride of accomplishment and
love for their teachers. Visiting the Carlisle school, I
saw Indian boys, from ten to fifteen years old, who had
arrived only five months before without the least know
ledge of the English language, writing down long columns
of figures at my dictation and adding them up without
the least mistake in calculation. Almost all submit
cheerfully to the discipline imposed upon them. The
boys show remarkable proficiency in mechanical and
agricultural occupations, and the girls in all kinds of
housework. They soon begin to take a lively and intelli-
134 The Writings of
gent interest in the things they see around them. Most
of this success is undoubtedly due to the intelligence,
skill and energy of the principals of those schools, General
Armstrong and Captain Pratt, who in an eminent degree
unite enthusiasm with practical ability. But it is evident
that the efforts of the most devoted teachers would be
of little avail, did not the pupils possess a corresponding
capacity of receiving instruction. A third school of this
kind was more recently established on the same plan at
Forest Grove, in Oregon, for the education of children of
the Indian tribes on the Pacific coast.
When the Indian pupils have received a sufficient course
of schooling, they are sent back to their tribes, to make
themselves practically useful there, and to serve, in their
turn, as teachers and examples. We hear sometimes the
opinion expressed that the young Indians so educated,
when returned to their tribes, will, under the influence of
their surroundings, speedily relapse into their old wild
habits, and that thus the results of their training will,
after all, be lost. Undoubtedly there was good reason
for such apprehensions at the time when the Indians had
no other conception of their future than an indefinite
continuance of their old life as hunters and warriors, when
civilized pursuits were not in demand among them, and
all influences were adverse to every effort in that direction.
Then, an educated Indian necessarily found himself
isolated among his people, and his accomplishments were
looked upon not only as useless, but as ridiculous. Under
such circumstances, of course, he would be apt to relapse.
But circumstances have changed since. It is generally
known among the Indians that hunting will soon be at
an end; that the old mode of life has become untenable
and productive work necessary. Now, knowledge and
skill are in immediate demand among them. As long as
they expected to live all their lives in tents of buffalo-
i88i] Carl Schurz 135
skin, or of canvas furnished by the Government, the skill
of the carpenter appeared to them useless. But now
that they build houses for themselves and stables for their
animals, the carpenter supplies an actual want. As long
as they had no use for wagons, the wagon-maker was
superfluous among them. As long as they raised only a
little squaw-corn, and to that end found it sufficient to
scratch the soil with their rude hoes, no mending of plows
was called for. But since they have engaged more largely
in agriculture, and are earning much money by freighting,
the man who can repair plows and wagons and harness
has become in their eyes a distinguished being. As long
as they expected to live forever separated from the whites,
the knowledge of the white man's language, and of read
ing and writing, was regarded as an unprofitable, and
sometimes even a suspicious acquirement. But since
the whites are crowding on all sides round their reserva
tions, and the Indians cannot much longer avoid contact
with them, and want to become like them, the knowledge
of the white man's language and of the "speaking paper"
appears in an entirely new light. Even most of the old-
fogy chiefs, who have clung most tenaciously to their
traditional customs, very earnestly desire their children
to receive that education for which they feel themselves
too old. In one word, knowledge and skill are now in
practical requisition among them, and the man who
possesses these accomplishments is no longer ridiculed,
but looked up to and envied. The young Indian, return
ing from school, will, under such circumstances, not be
isolated in his tribe; for he will be surrounded by some
who, having received the same education, are like him,
and by a larger number who desire to be like him. It is,
therefore, no longer to be apprehended that he will relapse
into savage life. He will be a natural helper, teacher
and example to his people.
136 The Writings of
Especial attention is given in the Indian schools to the
education of Indian girls, and at Hampton a new building
is being erected for that purpose. This is of peculiar
importance. The Indian woman has, so far, been only a
beast of burden. The girl, when arrived at maturity,
was disposed of like an article of trade. The Indian wife
was treated by her husband alternately with animal fond
ness, and with the cruel brutality of the slave-driver.
Nothing will be more apt to raise the Indians in the scale
of civilization than to stimulate their attachment to per
manent homes, and it is woman that must make the
atmosphere and form the attraction of the home. She
must be recognized, with affection and respect, as the
center of domestic life. If we want the Indians to respect
their women, we must lift up the Indian women to respect
themselves. This is the purpose and work of education.
If we educate the girls of to-day, we educate the mothers
of to-morrow, and in educating those mothers we prepare
the ground for the education of generations to come.
Every effort made in that direction is, therefore, entitled
to especial sympathy and encouragement.
It is true that the number of Indian children educated
at Hampton, Carlisle and Forest Grove is comparatively
small, at present between four and five hundred. And it
may be said that it will always remain small in proportion
to the whole number of Indian children of school age.
But, I have no doubt, even this comparatively small num
ber, when returning to their tribes, will exercise a very
perceptible influence in opening new views of life, in en
couraging the desire for improvement and in facilitating
the work of the schools at the agencies. This influence
will naturally be strengthened in the same measure as the
number of well-educated Indians grows larger. And I
see no reason why the Government should not establish
many more schools like those at Hampton and Carlisle.
i88i] Carl Schurz 137
It is only a question of money. We are told that it costs
little less than a million of dollars to kill an Indian in war.
It costs about one hundred and fifty dollars a year to
educate one at Hampton or Carlisle. If the education of
Indian children saves the country only one small Indian
war in the future, it will save money enough to sustain
ten schools like Carlisle, with three hundred pupils each,
for ten years. To make a liberal appropriation for such
a purpose would, therefore, not only be a philanthropic
act, but also the truest and wisest economy.
As the third thing necessary for the absorption of the
Indians in the great body of American citizenship, I men
tioned their individualization in the possession of property
by their settlement in severalty upon small farm tracts
with a fee-simple title. When the Indians are so settled,
and have become individual property-owners, holding
their farms by the same title under the law by which white
men hold theirs, they will feel more readily inclined to
part with such of their lands as they cannot themselves
cultivate, and from which they can derive profit only if
they sell them, either in lots or in bulk, for a fair equiva
lent in money or in annuities. This done, the Indians
will occupy no more ground than so many white people;
the large reservations will gradually be opened to general
settlement and enterprise, and the Indians, with their
possessions, will cease to stand in the way of the "develop
ment of the country." The difficulty which has pro
voked so many encroachments and conflicts will then no
longer exist. When the Indians are individual owners
of real property, and as individuals enjoy the protection
of the laws, their tribal cohesion will necessarily relax,
and gradually disappear. They will have advanced an
immense step in the direction of the "white man's way."
Is this plan practicable? In this respect we are not
entirely without experience. Allotments of farm tracts
The Writings of
to Indians and their settlement in severalty have already
been attempted under special laws or treaties with a few
tribes; in some instances, with success; in others, the
Indians, when they had acquired individual title to their
land, and before they had learned to appreciate its value,
were induced to dispose of it, or were tricked out of it by
unscrupulous white men, who took advantage of their
ignorance. They were thus impoverished again, and
some of them fell back upon the Government for support.
This should be guarded against, as much as it can be, by
a legal provision making the title to their farm tracts
inalienable for a certain period, say twenty-five years,
during which the Indians will have sufficient opportunity
to acquire more provident habits, to become somewhat
acquainted with the ways of the world and to learn to
take care of themselves. In some cases where the allot
ment of lands in severalty and the granting of patents
conveying a fee-simple title to Indians was provided for
in Indian treaties, the Interior Department under the last
Administration saw fit to put off the full execution of this
provision for the reason that the law did not permit the
insertion in the patent of the inalienability clause, that
without such a clause the Indians would be exposed to the
kind of spoliation above mentioned, and that it was
hoped Congress would speedily supply that deficiency
by the passage of the general "Severalty bill, " then under
discussion. Indeed, without such a clause in the land-
patents, it cannot be denied that the conveyance of in
dividual fee-simple title to Indians would be a hazardous
experiment, except in the case of those most advanced in
civilization.
The question whether and how far the Indians generally
are prepared for so great a change in their habits as their
settlement in severalty involves, is certainly a very im
portant one. Among those belonging to the five so-called
Carl Schurz 139
civilized nations in the Indian Territory, opinions on this
point are divided. When I visited their Agricultural
Fair at Muscogee, two years ago, I found that of the
representative men meeting there a minority were in
favor of, but a strong majority opposed to, the division of
their lands in severalty. This opposition springs in great
part from the timid apprehension of the Indians that the
division of their lands would, in the course of time, bring
upon them the competition of white men, in which they
distrust their ability to hold their own ; and this feeling is
worked upon by the ambitious politicians among them,
who aspire to the high offices in their tribes, and who know
that the settlement in severalty will be apt eventually to
break up the tribal organization and to deprive the poli
ticians of their importance. The friends of the severalty
policy, on the other hand, I found to be mostly bright,
active and energetic men, some of them full-blood Indians,
who trust their own ability to sustain themselves, and
are clear-headed enough to foresee what the ultimate
fate of the Indian race must be. Among the "wild"
tribes now beginning to adopt "the white man's way,"
the idea of settlement in severalty appears more popular
in proportion. Appeals to the Government from Indians
of that class for the allotment of farm tracts to heads of
families and for "the white man's paper, " have been very
frequent of late, and in many instances very urgent. It
is not to be assumed, however, that most of those who
make such demands have more than a vague conception
of what they are asking for, and that all the consequences
of their settlement in severalty are entirely clear to their
minds. In treating with uncivilized Indians we must
never forget that their thoughts move within the narrow
compass of their traditional notions, and that their
understanding of any relations of life beyond that limited
horizon are mere abstractions to them, and must neces-
140 The Writings of
sarily be very imperfect. I have become acquainted with
several chiefs of so-called "wild" tribes, who had won a
reputation as men of ability, such as Spotted Tail, Red
Cloud, Chief Joseph and others, and while I found them
to possess considerable shrewdness in the management of
their own affairs according to their Indian notions, their
grasp of things outside of that circle was extremely un
certain. I may except only Ouray, the late chief of the
Ute nation, a man of a comprehensive mind, of large views,
appreciating with great clearness not only the present sit
uation of his race, but also its future destiny and the meas
ures necessary to save the Indians from destruction and to
assimilate them with the white people with whom they have
to live. We must not expect them, therefore, to evolve out
of their own consciousness what is best for their salvation.
We must in a great measure do the necessary thinking
for them, and then in the most humane way possible in
duce them to accept our conclusions. This is in most
cases much more easily accomplished than might generally
be supposed; for, especially in the transition from savage
to civilized life, the Indian looks up with natural respect
to the superior wisdom of the "Great Father," and, not
withstanding the distrust engendered by frequent decep
tions in his intercourse with white men, it is not difficult to
win his confidence if he is only approached with frankness
and evidence of good-will. As to the severalty policy,
those of the Indians who have become convinced of the
necessity of adopting the "white man's way" are easily
made to comprehend the advantage of each man's having
his own piece of land, and a good title to it. The ulterior
consequences, as the gradual dissolution of the tribal
relations, the disposition to be made of the unused lands
for a fair compensation and the opening of the large
reservations, — these things will become intelligible and
naturally acceptable to them as they go on. More op-
i88i] Carl Schurz 141
position to the severalty policy may be apprehended from
the ''civilized tribes" in the Indian Territory, for the
reasons above stated, than from those just emerging from
a savage condition. But, I have no doubt, that also will
yield in the course of time, as the peculiarities of their
situation become clearer to their minds. It is only to be
hoped that the change of sentiment may come soon,
before the pressure of advancing enterprise has forced a
conflict, and while the necessary transformation can be
effected in peace and good order.
It must be kept in mind that the settlement of the
Indians in severalty is one of those things for which the
Indians and the Government are not always permitted to
choose their own time. The necessity of immediate action
may now and then present itself suddenly. Take the
case of the Utes. Living in a country where game was
still comparatively abundant down to a recent time, they
were less inclined than other "wild" tribes to recognize
the necessity of a change in their mode of life. But the
pressure of mining enterprise in the direction of the Ute
reservation was great. The impatience of the people of
Colorado at the occupation by Indians of the western
part of the State gave reason for the apprehension of
irritations and collisions, and this state of things was ag
gravated by the occurrence of some disturbances at the
agency. Under these circumstances, the Interior Depart
ment thought it advisable, in the autumn of 1879, to dis
patch a suitable man as special agent to the Ute country,
with instructions to allay the troubles existing at the
agency, and to inquire whether steps could be taken to
effect the settlement of the Utes in severalty, with any
chance of success. While this measure was in preparation,
the whole aspect of affairs suddenly changed. Fights
and massacres occurred on the Ute reservation, which
are still fresh in our memory. The people of Colorado
142 The Writings of
were in a blaze of excitement. The cry, "The Utes must
go!" rang all over the State. We were on the brink of
an Indian war at the beginning of winter. That war
threatened to involve the whole Ute nation, and to cost
us many lives and millions of money. It would finally
have resulted in the destruction of the Ute tribe, or at
least a large portion of it, — of the innocent with the guilty,
at a great sacrifice, on our part, of blood and treasure.
It was evident, to every one capable of judging the emer
gency, that such a calamity could be averted only by
changing the situation of the Indians. Negotiations were
opened, and the Utes agreed to be settled in severalty
upon the lands designated for that purpose, and to cede to
the United States the whole of their reservation, except
some small tracts of agricultural and grazing lands, in
consideration of certain ample equivalents in various
forms. Nobody will pretend that the Utes were fully
prepared for such a change in their condition. Their
chief, Ouray, was probably the only man among them
who had a clear conception of the whole extent of that
change. But nothing short of it would have saved the
Ute tribe from destruction, and averted a most bloody
and expensive conflict. In fact, even after that measure
of composition, it required the most watchful management
to prevent complications and collisions, and that watchful
management will have to be continued for some time,
for the danger is by no means over.
I cite this as an example to show how, in the conduct of
Indian affairs, the necessity of doing certain things with
out sufficient preparation is sometimes precipitated upon
the Government. Similar complications may arise at
any time where the pressure of advancing enterprise upon
Indian reservations is very great, and sustained by a
numerous and rapidly increasing population, but especially
where valuable mineral deposits have been discovered
Carl Schurz 143
or their discovery is in prospect. There is nothing more
dangerous to an Indian reservation than a rich mine.
But the repeated invasions of the Indian Territory, as
well as many other similar occurrences, have shown
clearly enough that the attraction of good agricultural
lands is apt to have the same effect, especially when great
railroad enterprises are pushing in the same direction.
It required, on the part of the Government, the greatest
vigilance and energy to frustrate the attempted invasions
of the Indian Territory, year after year. But as the en
deavors of the Government have not always in similar cases
had the same success in the past, they may not always
be equally successful in the future, and there is now
scarcely a single Indian reservation in the country that will
not soon be exposed to the same chances. It is, therefore,
of the utmost importance to the Indians, as well as to the
country generally, that a policy be adopted which will
secure to them and their descendants the safe possession
of such tracts of land as they can cultivate, and a fair
compensation for the rest ; and that such a policy be pro
ceeded with before the protection of their present large
possessions by the Government becomes too precarious—
that is to say, before conflicts are precipitated upon them
which the Government is not always able to prevent, and
by which they may be in danger of losing their lands,
their compensation and even their lives, at the same time.
It would undoubtedly be better if they could be carefully
prepared for such a change of condition, so that they
might clearly appreciate all its requirements and the
consequences which are to follow. But those intrusted
with the management of Indian affairs must not forget
that, with regard to some Indian tribes and reservations
at least, the matter is pressing; that the Government
cannot control circumstances but is rather apt to be con
trolled by them, and that it must not only devise the
144 The Writings of
necessary preparations for the change in the condition of
the Indians with forecast and wisdom, but must push
them with the greatest possible expedition and energy if
untoward accidents are to be avoided.
It is, therefore, very much to be regretted that the bill
authorizing and enabling the Interior Department to
settle the Indians in severalty wherever practicable, to
give them patents, conveying a fee-simple title to their
allotments, inalienable for a certain period, and to dispose
of the reservation lands not so allotted with the consent
of the Indians and for their benefit, so that they may be
opened for general settlement and enterprise, did not
become a law at the last session of Congress, or, rather,
that such a law was not enacted years ago. The debate
in the Senate on the severalty bill, last winter, turned on
the imperfections of its details. No doubt, such imper
fections existed. It would, indeed, be very difficult, if not
impossible, to draw up a bill of this kind so perfect in all
its details that further experience gathered from its
practical application might not suggest some desirable
amendment. But the essential thing is that opportunity
be given to the branch of the Government managing
Indian affairs to gather such further experience from the
actual experiment, and that opportunity will be given
only by the enactment of a law containing the principal
features of the plan, and allowing the Executive sufficient
latitude in applying it, according to circumstances,
wherever the Indians may be prepared for it, or wherever,
even without such preparation, the exigencies of the case
may demand prompt action. The Executive will then
be able understandingly to recommend amendments in the
details of the law, as practical experience may point out
their necessity. Certainly, not another session of Con
gress should be permitted to pass without comprehensive
legislation on this important subject.
Carl Schurz 145
I am aware that I have not discussed here all points
of importance connected with the Indian problem, such,
for instance, as the necessity of extending the jurisdiction
of the courts over Indian reservations, bringing the red
men under the protection as well as the restraints of the
law; and the question how the service should be organized
to secure to the Indians intelligent, honest and humane
management, etc. It has been my purpose merely to set
forth those important points which, in the practical man
agement of Indian affairs, should be steadily kept in view.
I will recapitulate them:
1 The greatest danger hanging over the Indian race
arises from the fact that, with their large and valuable
territorial possessions which are lying waste, they stand
in the way of what is commonly called "the development
of the country."
2 A rational Indian policy will make it its principal
object to avert that danger from the red men, by doing
what will be most beneficial to them, as well as to the
whole people : namely, by harmonizing the habits, occupa
tions and interests of the Indians with that "development
of the country."
3 To accomplish this object, it is of pressing necessity
to set the Indians to work, to educate their youth of both
sexes, to make them small proprietors of land, with the right
of individual ownership under the protection of the law,
and to induce them to make that part of their lands which
they do not need for cultivation, profitable to themselves in
the only possible way, by selling it at a just rate of compen
sation, thus opening it to general settlement and enterprise.
The policy here outlined is apt to be looked upon with
disfavor by two classes of people : on the one hand, those
who think that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian/1
and who denounce every recognition of the Indian's
rights and every desire to promote his advancement in
VOL. IV. — IO
146 The Writings of [1881
civilization as sickly sentimentality; and, on the other
hand, that class of philanthropists who, in their treat
ment of the Indian question, pay no regard to surrounding
circumstances and suspect every policy contemplating a
reduction of the Indian reservations of being a scheme of
spoliation and robbery, gotten up by speculators and
"land-grabbers." With the first class it seems useless
to reason. As to the second, they do not themselves
believe, if they are sensible, that twenty-five years hence
millions of acres of valuable land will, in any part of the
country, still be kept apart as Indian hunting-grounds.
The question is, whether the Indians are to be exposed to
the danger of hostile collisions, and of being robbed of their
lands in consequence, or whether they are to be induced
by proper and fair means to sell that which, as long as
they keep it, is of no advantage to anybody, but which, as
soon as they part with it for a just compensation, will be a
great advantage to themselves and their white neighbors
alike. No true friend of the Indian will hesitate to choose
the latter line of policy as one in entire accord with sub
stantial justice, humanity, the civilization and welfare of
the red men and the general interests of the country.
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WILMINGTON, DEL., July 7, 1881.
Personal.
My dear Schurz : I am glad to get the Post and trace your
hand daily in its columns. In the number I received yester
day was an echo to some thoughts of my own in relation to
the late "impressive utterances" (as the Herald styled them)
of ex-Senator Conkling on the great and paramount duty of
" holding up the hands " of Vice- President Arthur in the hour
of his possible call to the Presidential office, and giving among
other reasons the fact that in the absence of any President
pro tern, of the Senate and Speaker of the House, his single
Carl Schurz 147
life would stand between the country and the confusion likely
to arise for want of a locum tenens of the Presidency. And
the New York Sun regrets the "accident" of the Senate's fail
ing to elect a President pro tern, before adjourning in May last.
In the light of history this is rather too cheeky; for the Senate
did not "omit," but Mr. Arthur did designedly prevent, an
election and in the face of frequent intimations did decline
to vacate the chair in order to allow a President pro tern, to be
chosen. When the subject was broached to him, he asked
" who" would probably be chosen (the Democrats by the
retirement of Conkling and Platt having a majority), and
was told Mr. Bayard would certainly be. Mr. Conkling took
occasion to put the same question and received the same reply.
Mr. Gorham, in their Washington organ, the Republic sug
gested that if Mr. Harris, of Tennessee, would be chosen, the
opportunity for that would be allowed, but the Democratic ma
jority did not propose to have their action dictated by the anti-
Administration cabal. Mr. Harris of Tennessee had placated
offended deity by pairing against Judge Robertson's nomination
and was in sympathetic relations with Robertson's opponents.
The facts, of the notification to Arthur that the Democrats
were ready to go into an election of President pro tern, and his
reply, were conveyed to me by sundry Senators who informed
me also that I would be chosen if Mr. Arthur would allow an
election, but this opportunity he deliberately refused to allow.
And it won't do now for him and his "Boss" to equivocate
in the face of an indignant public in relation to their own
unworthy dealings with an important public fact.
May Heaven avert the contingency of Arthur's promotion.
FROM ALONZO BELL1
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5, 1881.
Personal.
I was greatly rejoiced on my return from a sea-trip to find
that the Ponca war was at last ended, that Bright Eyes had
1 Assistant Secretary of the Interior under Secretaries Schurz and
Kirkwood.
148 The Writings of [1881
capitulated to Tibbies, and that Tibbies had surrendered to
Bright Eyes. I very much fear, however, that this last act
of the pale-face is in the line of other wrongs perpetrated upon
this most unfortunate band of Indians, and that the confiding
Indian maiden will some day feel that the fate of Big Snake
was preferable to the unhappy one which she has chosen.
Will Dawes hold the Department responsible for this? Will
Governor Long add it to his long list of indictments? Let us
hope that both may take a rose-colored view of the union
between the dusky daughter of the forest and the gay profes
sional philanthropist who buried all the wrongs of her race in a
greater one upon herself. I fear poor Bright Eyes has made a
mistake, but I am willing to forgive her if the act has effectually
disposed of Tibbies. Even so great a sacrifice may be rare
economy if it gives the Nation a rest from the vexatious borings
of the Tibbies school of philanthropy.
I should like much to see you and talk over affairs connected
with public interests. Our Indian policy is substantially
yours. In fact, I see no desire anywhere to depart from the
wise plans laid down by you. Mr. Kirkwood shows an earnest
desire to do the best possible in all branches of the service.
If his Administration is as successful as yours both the coun
try and himself will have reason to be well satisfied. With
grateful remembrance of your leadership, I remain,
As ever truly,
A. BELL.
TO GEORGE M. LOCKWOOD1
The Evening Post,
NEW YORK, Oct. 27, 1881.
Private.
This morning I received an anonymous letter refer
ring to the resolution to investigate the contingent fund
expenditures in the different Departments passed by the
Senate yesterday, and saying that now at last my " ras
calities" in handling the contingent fund would "come
1 Chief Clerk, Interior Department.
i88i] Carl Schurz 149
to light/* I have so far been resting in the happy con
sciousness not only of not having taken any advantage of
the contingent fund, but of never having charged to it
or drawn from it any of the expenses incurred by me
personally in the discharge of official business, to the re
imbursement of which I would be entitled. Can you think
of anything that I may not remember or that may never
have come to my knowledge, in connection with the
contingent or any other fund, that might bear any evil
construction or be capable of misrepresentation or dis
tortion in that way? Having been quite punctilious in
these things, I can not remember anything of the kind.
Do you? If so let me know.
Are you not coming to New York to vote? If so, do
not fail to call on me, as you always should when you
visit New York. I am at my desk usually from 9 A.M.
until 4.30 P.M., and I live at 45 East 68th Street.
I suppose the anonymous letter I mentioned was from
some embittered politician who wanted to annoy me. I
get such things quite frequently.
FROM THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON
25 BUCKINGHAM ST.,
CAMBRIDGE, Nov. 26, 1881.
Personal.
I wish to write to you frankly about something and know
you will answer in the same way.
The Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association are to
make a special move this winter to obtain municipal suffrage
for women in this State and they are to hold an important
meeting in Tremont Temple, Jan. loth or nth. Now the
Blackwells are firm in the conviction that when the Kansas
campaign on the subject took place in 1867 you expressed
yourself to them as favorable to woman suffrage and willing
to speak in favor of it. This is new to me but I agree with
150 The Writings of [1882
them that if you are favorable, your influence would be very
important to us. Can you not speak at that meeting or at
some time during Jan. loth or nth? Of course we would pay
your usual lecture fee which is understood to be $100. It
would gratify me greatly if you would come.
P. S. Governor Long's message will distinctly favor muni
cipal suffrage for women, I am told.
TO THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON
NEW YORK, Nov. 28, 1881.
Your kind note of the 26th inst. has just reached me.
Frankly, I have never taken any part in the Woman
Suffrage movement. It is a mistake that I was intending
to go to Kansas when the subject was under discussion
there, and I could not possibly be in Boston on the loth
or nth of January.
Will you not visit New York some time this winter?
If so, I hope you will let me know of it. I should be very
happy to see you here.
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
The Evening Post,
NEW YORK, Jan. 16, 1882.
A resolution has been introduced in the Senate and
passed, calling upon the Interior Department for copies
of a ruling made by me as Secretary of the Interior in 1879
with respect to the Northern Pacific railroad land grant,
and of other papers connected with the case. I suppose
these papers will go to the Judiciary Committee of the
Senate for examination as to whether the ruling was in
accordance with law. Some newspapers have availed
themselves of the introduction of that resolution to charge
me with performing that official act under the influence
Carl Schurz 151
of improper motives. While the Senate may not feel
inclined to take cognizance of mere irresponsible news
paper talk, yet it seems to me that when either by any
act of the Senate or in the debates of that body injurious
reflections are cast upon the official conduct and character
of one who has been six years a Senator and four years a
member of the Cabinet, he may be considered entitled to
a full and fair inquiry into all the facts in question.
Whether the resolution introduced by Senator Teller was
intended to convey any such reflection, I do not know.
But it has been so interpreted and I am advised that
several Members of Congress so understand it.
Under these circumstances I would ask you to move in
the Senate that either the Judiciary Committee, or one
especially appointed for the purpose, be instructed to
investigate thoroughly and publicly my official action in
the case referred to. The facts are easily obtainable, and
the investigation I desire is that those who attack my
conduct be given the best possible opportunity to make
good their charges and insinuations, and that the truth
may have a chance to become known by the voice of
unassailable authority. T
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19, 1882.*
You may be sure that I will aid in procuring any investi
gation you may deem necessary to prevent injustice to you
personally and officially. I comprehend your impatience and
disgust at the indications of underhanded imputation upon
your official action and career.
I will let Edmunds know of my disposition, and I hope he
will feel as I do. . . .
1 See letter of March 15, 1883, to Geo. W. Julian.
2 In answer to a letter similar to the one of Jan. 16, 1882, to Senator
Edmunds.
152 The Writings of
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 1882.
I have to thank you for your kind letter informing me
that the papers connected with my ruling in respect to the
Northern Pacific railroad grant have been referred to the
Judiciary Committee. I fear I did not make myself
sufficiently clear when asking you to move an investi
gation of my official conduct in that case. Not only is
the ruling itself attacked as incorrect, but I find myself
charged in some public papers — and these charges seem
to have been called forth by a resolution introduced in the
Senate — with having by an arbitrary stretch of authority
as Secretary of the Interior " restored" to the Northern
Pacific railroad a forfeited land grant, and with having
done this to benefit a personal friend, Mr. Henry Villard,
who is alleged to have been then as now the principal
party interested in that road. These charges do not only
appear in certain newspapers, but they are, as I am
advised, circulated and countenanced by some Members
of Congress.
Inasmuch as they touch the integrity of a great Execu
tive department in an important official act, they may be
considered entitled to attention, not as a mere matter of
personal concern, but as a matter of public interest. The
people ought to know whether their affairs have been
honestly administered or not. It is, therefore, of import
ance that it be generally known, not only whether the
ruling made in the case referred to, is correct, in point of
law, but whether the allegations made concerning the
circumstances under which it was made, have any
foundation.
It can very easily be shown that the case, before being
decided, was most carefully and conscientiously considered
on its merits ; that, as a legal question, it was submitted to
1882] Carl Schurz 153
the Attorney-General; that the Attorney-General heard
elaborate argument upon it ; that the decision as it stands
was drawn up according to his instructions; that in all
parallel cases he declared it to be not only within the
power but the duty of the Executive under such circum
stances to recognize land grants as still legally existing
and to act accordingly ; that Mr. Henry Villard had neither
at the time when the ruling was made nor for nearly two
years afterwards any interest in the Northern Pacific
Company; that he was, on the contrary, interested in a
rival enterprise, and that there was absolutely no connec
tion between him and the ruling in question and no
communication, direct or indirect, about it between him
and me.
It is not only of interest to me but also to the public
that the truth should be brought out in some way suffi
ciently authoritative to stand above cavil. If to that end
it is best that the Committee, to which the matter has
been referred, be authorized to send for persons and
papers, to swear witnesses and thus to ascertain the facts
by way of a formal and public investigation, I should be
glad to have that done. If the object can be accomplished
in some less expensive and circumstantial way, I should
be satisfied. I appeal to you as to a friend of truth and
justice, for your judgment as to what should be done, and
your aid in doing it.
FROM GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
U. S. SENATE CHAMBER,
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 1882.
I have yours of the 24th with accompanying enclosures.
I do not think it at all probable without some more specific
statement than appears in newspapers, if you — a newspaper
man — will pardon my saying so, that the Senate would order
154 The Writings of [1882
or admit any investigation of the kind you name. You of
course have it entirely in your power to answer public com
plaints by a statement of the facts and a reference to the
sources of information, and you have a right by a memorial
addressed to Congress to implore an inquiry, if you think the
matter of sufficient consequence to do so. On such a memorial
doubtless the Senate or House would direct an investigation.
But if you or any other prominent man commence the practice
of appealing to Congress for investigations every time you are
assailed in the newspapers, you will have a pretty busy life;
and to appeal once and not afterward in some similar case
raises an implication that you cannot bear an investigation in
the second. On the whole I should advise you to fight it
out as far as you like in the public prints until something more
definite should be stated against you in one house or the other
of Congress. I was sorry not to be able to see Mr. White at
the time he called, and he could not wait until I should be at
leisure.
TO JOSEPH MEDILL
NEW YORK, Sept. 21, 1882.
To-day I received the Chicago Tribune of the iQth
containing a long interview, in which Mr. Blaine responds
to some remarks about him as a civil service reformer
which appeared some time ago in the Evening Post, with
a column or two of personal abuse directed against me.
The abuse being of the old Gail Hamiltonian pattern, and
somewhat stale, calls for no reply. Neither am I in the
least disposed to enter into a dispute with Mr. Blaine as to
whether he or I was more faithful to the principles of
civil service reform while in office. In fact, I should not
take notice of the matter at all but for a rather amusing
circumstance, more amusing even than such a dispute
would be.
Mr. Blaine is known to be of a very dramatic disposition,
Carl Schurz 155
and it is his characteristic method, whenever he feels
himself attacked, to defend himself by an assault upon
the accuser, and thus to entertain and divert the public
by the spectacle of a lively fight between individuals.
So in this instance. Mr. Elaine was sure that the article
in the Evening Post which reflected upon him was from
the pen of Mr. Schurz, who is, as Mr. Elaine sweepingly
remarks, of all men, "studiously and gratuitously offen
sive in all he says. " Mr. Elaine identified the hand of his
antagonist beyond doubt, and then he sallied forth in his
characteristic style. Now, I cannot resist the temptation
to spoil the dramatic combination by saying that Mr.
Elaine has directed his tirade to an entirely wrong address.
When the Evening Post discussed Mr. Elaine as a civil
service reformer I was quietly enjoying my summer
vacation — more than 200 miles from New York, equally
ignorant of Mr. Elaine's new pretensions as a civil
service reformer and of what the Evening Post was go
ing to say about him. If, therefore, he wants to re
main true to his method of meeting a charge by reviling
the accuser, he will in this case have to abuse somebody
else.
I do not, however, say this for the purpose of suggesting
that he ought not to abuse me. I have to admit that he
has sufficient reason for it. Although I am not the author
of the Evening Post article in question, and might have
preferred to treat Mr. Elaine's new reform attitude good-
naturedly as the rich joke which he himself undoubtedly
feels it to be, and, although I am anxious to see full
justice done to him in the Evening Post according to the
facts, yet there is another disturbing difference between
us beyond the civil service question. To make a clean
breast of it, it consists in my entertaining, as Mr. Elaine
knows, quite seriously the opinion that the author of the
Mulligan letters will, in spite of "booms" and "plumes"
156 The Writings of [1883
and reform professions, never get votes enough to be
elected President of the United States. And, as I not
only entertain this opinion, but have sometimes expressed
it, Mr. Elaine cannot be expected altogether to restrain
his feelings.
TO JOHN T. MORSE, JR.
The Evening Post, 210 BROADWAY,
NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 1883.
I am at work at the Clay biography, that is to say, I
have for a considerable time been engaged in studying the
material, of which, however, there is still a larger quantity
before me which I have not been able to touch. There
has been less intelligent and valuable work done on Clay's
life than on that of any other prominent American states
man, so that his biographer, at least a biographer as he
ought to be, has to do it all himself. I have become
greatly interested in the subject, but I am entirely unable
to name a definite time for the completion of the work.
The fact is that my regular duties will not permit me to
spend more than two or three evenings, or rather parts of
two or three evenings a week on it, and you will readily
understand that under such circumstances no rapid prog
ress is possible. It has occurred to me that I could furnish
the biography of Gallatin in a much shorter time than that
of Clay, for the reason that the subject is more familiar
to me and the material is much more "ready to hand."
I wonder whether an exchange of subjects could be made
with the gentleman who has undertaken Gallatin? What
do you think?
I am sorry I cannot give you a more definite promise
than that I shall do the best I can. Be assured, it is not
my fault. I am simply the victim of circumstances which
have condemned me to work as a journalist.
1883] Carl Schurz 157
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SAVANNAH NEWS
January 30, 1883.
On the 1 6th of this month you did me the honor of
addressing to me personally an editorial article in your
journal on the subject of homicide in the Southern States.
You do not deny, as I understand you, that the discussion
of the subject in the Evening Post and the Nation may have
been prompted by motives friendly to the Southern people.
You can scarcely think otherwise when you remember —
as certainly many Southern men remember — that I was
one of the first among Republicans in Missouri that
championed, at the expense of their party standing, the
reenfranchisement of those disfranchised on account of
their participation in the rebellion ; one of the first among
Republicans in the Senate who advocated a general
amnesty, who never ceased to denounce the abuses of
the so-called carpet-bag governments and who zealously
opposed every policy or measure calculated to withhold
from the Southern people their rights and privileges as
citizens. And what I did in the Senate those who are
associated with me in the Evening Post did with equal zeal
in the press. We therefore may say that we befriended the
Southern people when they most needed friends, and that
the same spirit animates us now and gives us a right to
speak. Neither can you, as an intelligent and well-
informed man, give your countenance to the silly in
sinuations which you mention in your article, that this
discussion has on our part been conducted with a desire
to divert immigration from the South and to direct it to
some other part of the country. For you must be well
aware that for many years before the beginning of this
discussion the South has attracted but very few immi
grants, and that there are at present no signs of migration
turning that way. What you have not can not be taken
158 The Writings of
from you, and if there is anybody who does not desire
you to have it, he will naturally find it the best policy to
leave things just as they are. But what we wish is not to
leave things just as they are.
I am somewhat surprised at your suggestion that the
Evening Post would show more friendship for the South if,
instead of drawing your attention to certain disturbing
influences by way of criticism, it spoke of the "great
resources" of the South, of its "wonderful recuperation
from the waste of war," etc. That is what the Evening
Post has lost no proper occasion for doing. No man can
more sincerely rejoice at the return of prosperity to the
South than I do, and it is for that very reason that I
deplore the circumstances which prevent your recovery
and progress from being more rapid and general. Heartily
wishing that you should have that immigration of men
and means, which for the development of your resources
is so eminently desirable, we ask for the privilege — and it
may be claimed as a privilege of friendship — to inquire
into the reasons why those advantages are turned away in
so great a measure from your fertile soil and your great
opportunities. It is not for our benefit, but for yours, that
this inquiry is made, for its results may be much more
valuable to the Southern people than to anybody else.
I know that friendly services of this character are not
always graciously received, but this consideration should
not deter those who mean well and whose duty it is to
discuss matters of public interest.
No observing and candid man will deny that one of the
reasons why immigration shuns the South, in spite of its
genial climate, its fertile acres and its variety of tempting
advantages, consists in a social distemper, which finds its
expression in the frequency of certain kinds of homicide.
I say "certain kinds of homicide," for I do not deny that
there are classes of crime which occur more frequently in
1883] Carl Schurz 159
other parts of the country. You point to the cities of
New York and Chicago as examples of the insecurity of
human life at the North. I admit at once that robbery,
and murder for the sake of robbery, are more rare in the
South than among the crowded populations of our great
centers, and that in this respect a man's life may be safer
almost anywhere in Georgia than on certain streets of
New York or Chicago after dark. The same may be
said comparatively of all great capitals in the world. But
the homicides in the South which attract so much attention
and produce so baneful an effect are not murders perpe
trated by professional thieves who kill men to rifle their
wallets; they are homicides occurring among persons
whom, in a multitude of cases, your own journals are in
the habit of designating as gentlemen, as citizens of re
spected standing, of good families, belonging to the better
classes of society. And these homicides are the result of
commonplace troubles, disagreements about business
matters, importunities of creditors, social disputes, family
feuds, quarrels about a dog or a horse, accidental insults,
heated words at a ball or a card table or a church meeting.
The question may be asked whether homicides of that
kind are more infamous in character than murders com
mitted for the purpose of robbery, and I answer at once
that they are not. But when I am further asked why such
homicides should do more harm to your community in the
estimation of the world than murders for the purpose of
robbery do to ours, the answer is that here the murderer
is, as a general thing, condemned by public opinion and
hunted down as an infamous criminal and hung, if caught,
while the kind of manslaying in the South I speak of is,
as a general thing, greatly "deplored," but at the same
time very frequently excused, and almost universally pro
tected against due punishment by morbid public senti
ment. In the one case, the law-abiding citizen finds public
160 The Writings of [1883
opinion, which condemns manslaying as an infamous
crime, as well as the organs of the law, which punish it as
such, strongly on his side, while in the other case he finds
himself confronted by certain traditional notions of society
which are apt to protect the willful manslayer against
social infamy as well as against the punishment provided
by the law. And such traditional notions, and the prac
tices which grow up under them, create a social atmosphere
which most people, when they deliberate upon the choice
of a new home or field of enterprise, prefer to avoid.
It has been suggested that this view of the case is
practically controverted by the thousands of people of
means who go into the mining regions of the far West to
invest their capital there, although the homicidal use of
the revolver and bowie knife is comparatively as frequent
there as in the South, if not more so. But this fact does
not impugn my argument in the least, for this simple
reason: The law-abiding citizen who goes to the far West
knows to an absolute certainty that the ruffianly state of
society there is a thing of only a short duration; that, as
immigration pours in it will very soon establish those habits
of social order which its good elements bring with them,
and that in introducing those habits there will only be a
few lawless ruffians to put down, but no settled adverse
public opinion or morbid social notions of any strength to
overcome. This is a universal experience with which the
law-abiding citizen going there is well acquainted, and,
therefore, he is not deterred from going. But as to going
to the South, he fears that he would find those social
notions which furnish excuse and exemption from punish
ment to the manslayer as the principal obstacle to that
good order which he considers essential to his well-being.
This is the difference, and it is just this difference which, in
its practical effects, tells so seriously against the South.
Now, as to the facts concerning homicides in the
1883] Carl Schurz 161
Southern States, you say in the editorial article addressed
to me: " We confess that the practice complained of, while
it is not so prevalent as the editor would make it appear,
is none the less to be deplored, and, we are convinced, is
rapidly going into desuetude." I emphatically disclaim
all desire to make that " practice" appear more prevalent
than it really is. What the Evening Post has been doing
for two or three months, is not to invent any cases, nor to
exaggerate them, but simply to discuss them as they were
reported by Southern newspapers.
Their number, I regret to say, was quite large, too large
indeed, to be accepted as representing the decline of the
practice. And it was the Southern press that classified
them, and drew attention to them by elaborate descrip
tions. In a multitude of instances we were told the deed
was done by a man "greatly respected by his neighbors,"
of a " well-known family," or "a citizen of prominence,"
or "a member of good society," and that the occurrence
was "generally deplored, " or that it had "cast gloom over
the community"; and, in not a few cases, that "further
difficulties were apprehended. " But we did not once hear
that the perpetrator was tried, found guilty and hung, or
even that it was generally hoped he would be. Thus it
was the Southern press which made these homicides
conspicuous and gave them their peculiar significance.
What we did was simply to point out to the Southern
people that, for the sake of their good name as well as
prosperity, such outrageous practices should not only be
deplored, but stopped. And as you yourself "confess
that the practice is to be deplored," I may fairly assume
that you earnestly desire to see it stopped. We are thus
engaged in a common cause, and you will, therefore,
surely take it in good part if I venture to make some
suggestions concerning the means to be used to that end.
It is necessary to set those forces in motion which are
VOL. IV. — II
1 62 The Writings of [1883
apt to exercise healthy influence upon public opinion.
There are several prominent journals in the South which
substantially agree with us. And judging from the letters
received in this office from persons of high character and
respected standing in the South, there are many men in
that part of the country who are deeply grieved at the
practices we lament, and whose voices would certainly be
listened to if speaking out openly, boldly and in concert.
If in every Southern State such men were prevailed upon
to come forward and form associations under the name of
law and order societies, or any similar title, for the dis
tinct object of suppressing this evil, they would, supported
by the most respectable part of the press, soon be able to
produce a powerful impression upon public sentiment,
and to organize a strong, perhaps an irresistible influence.
This is the plan I commend to your serious consideration.
They would have to direct their efforts mainly to three
objective points: First — To eradicate, especially from the
minds of young men, the antiquated and foolish notions
that it is decent and gentlemanly and chivalrous to
resort to violence upon every possible provocation.
Second — To discourage the carrying of concealed weapons
and to see that the laws prohibiting it be enforced. Third
-To use their whole influence to the end that homicide
be punished according to law without fear or favor. Let
me say a few words on these points in their order.
There is much extravagant talk in the South about a
" higher type of manhood" which "quickly resents an
injury," and about a "chivalrous" or "cavalierly" spirit
which is always ready to appeal to the sword or to the
pistol to redress one's own or other people's grievances.
This sort of talk is very apt to seduce the imaginations,
especially of young persons, who are easily made to believe
that they will show themselves as "perfect gentlemen, " or
become superior beings, or win a sort of patent of nobility,
1883] Carl Schurz 163
if on the slightest occasion they are prepared to feel in-
suited, and then to put a bullet or a charge of buckshot
into somebody else's body. Such young people should be
taught well, by precept and example, to appreciate the
difference between a gentleman and a ruffian. They will
then perceive that, in point of fact, a ruffian is easily and
frequently "insulted" by a ruffian, but a true gentleman
is very rarely insulted by another true gentleman. When
one of these rare cases happens there are almost always
methods of composition short of violence, and honorable
to both parties. When a gentleman is insulted by a ruffian
he will only lower his own dignity by adopting the ruffian's
method of settling a quarrel. When ruffians insult one
another they should not be permitted by any decent
person to believe that respectable society will regard them
as gentlemen if they fight each other with revolvers or shot
guns, and thus settle their quarrel in a ruffianly way.
No community, and no member of it, should be per
mitted to forget that it is the great office of the law to
redress wrongs and to protect the individual against
assaults upon his rights, his honor, his property and his
life. Your trouble is in a great measure that there are so
many persons among you who think they can not, or they
ought not, to intrust to the law and its organs affairs in
which they have any personal feeling and interest, and that
"taking the law in one's own hand" is regarded with too
encouraging a leniency by public sentiment. It is the
characteristic mark of civilized society that the individual
looks to the law for his protection and the enforcement of
his rights, while the habitual resort to violence by self-help
is the equally characteristic mark of the barbarous state.
Constant self-help by force and violence in resenting
insults or in enforcing claims of right may have been con
sidered "chivalry" some centuries ago. But that kind
of chivalry has been outgrown by a higher civilization.
1 64 The Writings of [1883
Those who try to put a pleasing face upon the homicidal
practice by speaking of it as owing to high spirits of the
"descendants of the cavaliers" in the South, seem to
forget that an overwhelming majority of the descendants
of that race of cavaliers live not here, but in England ; and
that, it may be supposed, the best of the cavalierly spirit
has descended upon those of the native soil, together with
their names, their escutcheons and their family traditions
— at least as much as upon the side lines in the Southern
States. But the descendants of the cavaliers in England
have become civilized in the same way as other people of
this century. They have undoubtedly retained a good
deal of pride of ancestry, and in most cases a lively sense
of honor. But while they have their disputes and quarrels
like the rest of us, we do not hear of any shooting and
stabbing among them. In fact, if any member of their
order should try to demonstrate his cavalierly spirit and
his quickness to resent an insult by whipping out a revolver
on every occasion, or by going after an enemy with a shot
gun, they would look upon him as an unmitigated ruffian,
entirely unworthy of their society, and they would have
him tried and hung if he actually killed anybody. In this
civilized century that man is regarded as the finest cavalier
who most conscientiously reveres the sanctity of the law,
shows the most just and generous spirit in the treatment
of his fellow-men, maintains his dignity by abstaining
not only from all mean but also from all brutal things
and cultivates the highest graces of civilized life. If the
high-spirited young men of the South desire to take rank
among the modern descendants of the cavaliers, and to
become themselves true cavaliers of the nineteenth cen
tury, they will quickly drop — together with their anti
quated notions of chivalry — their revolvers and their
shotguns as protectors of their honor and as their badges
of nobility.
1883] Carl Schurz 165
But even if they would model their conduct rather after
the knights of five hundred years ago, it should not be
forgotten that some of the cases on record would at no
period of history have been thought to have any kind of
chivalry in them. For instance, when a man, who wants
to avenge a real or imaginary insult, deems the whole code
of honor satisfied if he simply notifies his enemy that he
will shoot him at sight, and then kills him with a shotgun
from an upper-story window; or when a debtor puts a
bullet into the heart of a creditor who insults him by
dunning at an inopportune time.
Intelligent, generous and ambitious as the people of
the South are, I should think it could not be difficult by a
proper presentation of the case, coming from the most
respected class among them, to awaken them to a keen
appreciation of the mischief springing from such anti
quated and discreditable notions of chivalry and honor.
The practice of carrying concealed weapons appears very
much in the same light. That revolvers are habitually
carried by a very large portion of the male population of
the South is an admitted fact. Now, I ask you, in all
soberness, what condition of society would you call it,
in which a gentleman thinks it necessary, whenever leaving
his house, to put a revolver in his pocket in anticipation of
some " difficulty" with some other gentleman, which may
induce or oblige him to kill the latter? This view of the
matter may at first sight seem exaggerated. But is it so in
fact? Ask yourself, for what purpose are deadly weapons
so generally carried in the South? Not for protection
against wild beasts or against highway robbers. You
insist yourself that as to robbers the roads in Georgia are
safer than some of the streets of New York or Chicago,
and I do not deny it. And yet no gentleman here thinks
it necessary to have a pistol on his body when he goes to
his business place or to his club or to a ball. The few
1 66 The Writings of [1883
individuals who do so will scarcely be considered gentlemen
any longer when the fact of their constantly carrying
arms becomes known. Why, then, is it done by so many
persons belonging to the best society in the South? Is it
not really done in constant expectation of some insult, or
some dispute, or some collision — in one word, some ' ' diffi
culty " which may oblige or induce the carrier of the pistol
to make use of it by killing somebody? Is not the mere
statement of the case sufficient to show that this wide
spread habit is in itself a severe reflection upon the social
condition in which it prevails? Is it not true that the
men going constantly armed in anticipation of a quarrel
thus carry a temptation to resort to violence with them,
and that thus their pistols become the cause of their
"difficulties"? Are not there a great many men in the
South to-day who would never have got into bloody and
disgraceful troubles had they not habitually carried re
volvers ready to their hands, and who now devoutly wish
they had never done so? Would not Southern society be
in a position much more unassailable before the world,
and much more satisfactory to itself, if such a habit had
never prevailed?
Laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
can not become efficient unless they are supported by a
strong public opinion and by social custom. As soon as
decent people, in sufficient force and concert, speak out on
the subject and make their influence felt, so that a man
habitually carrying arms must feel himself in danger of
being frowned upon by polite society as "not a gentle
man/' or rather as a ruffian, those who have any social
aspirations will soon abandon the dangerous habit, and
the decisive step in the way of that reform will be accom
plished ; for, public opinion settled, the unruly can then be
coerced by the enforcement of the law.
And it will then no longer be difficult to secure the third
1883] Carl Schurz 167
point I mentioned, the punishment of the manslayer
according to law. When willful homicide, unless justified
by the clear necessity of self-defense or mitigated by the
extremest circumstances of mental distress, is regarded
and treated by society as the infamous crime it is, which
must exclude the perpetrator from all civilized and self-
respecting companionship, it will find juries to convict and
judges to sentence the guilty and governors to withhold
their pardon. There will then be no element ever so rough
that it might not be brought under the control of legal
authority.
You and all those in the South who ''confess to deplore "
the homicidal practice, and who in their hearts must
necessarily desire to stop it, should therefore feel called
upon promptly to take this matter in hand with that
courage which, conscious of serving a good cause, is not
to be daunted by the fear of temporary unpopularity.
If the law and order societies I have suggested are formed
all over the South, and if they pursue their end with pluck
and energy, they can scarcely fail of success; and their
success will confer a blessing upon the South, of which they
will have reason to be prouder than of any warlike exploits
and for which their children will never cease to be grateful.
Do not reject this advice as coming from one who does
not live among you. The Southern people have more and
warmer friends here than they are apt to recognize—
friends who are heartily glad of every sign of advancement
and prosperity in the Southern States, who esteem and
admire the many good and noble qualities of the Southern
people, and whose cordial wishes accompany every effort
you make in the way of social and material progress.
And we feel it to be a pity that these efforts should be
hampered by deplorable traditions of the past, and that
those noble qualities should be dimmed by a blemish
which you yourselves need only see as others see it, in
168 The Writings of [1883
order to wipe it out. I assure you, we have undertaken
this discussion, not from any desire to exhibit that blemish
to the world, for the Southern press has done that, nor
from any meddlesome spirit of fault-finding, but to stir
up the sensitiveness of the Southern people to the keenest
possible perception of an evil existing among them and of
the necessity of correcting it by their own endeavor. And
I may assure you also that nothing will give us more
genuine and heartfelt pleasure than to record and bring
to public notice and commendation any movement in
the right way.
In your editorial article you seem to intimate that in this
part of the country, too, there are evils enough to which we
might devote our reformatory zeal. This is true, and we
faithfully strive to subject those home distempers to
proper diagnosis and treatment as occasion offers. If you
find that we have overlooked any, I shall gratefully accept
the benefit of your criticism and advice as a welcome
reciprocation.
Since you have addressed yourself in your journal
personally to me, I trust you will not deny me the favor
of giving this letter a place in your columns so that it
may meet the eye of the same circle of readers.
TO GEORGE W. JULIAN
NEW YORK, March 15, 1883.
Sir : In your contribution to the March number of the
North American Review you seek to show that the Interior
Department has constantly been under the influence of the
railway corporations. The statements upon which you
rely to substantiate that charge, with regard to my ad
ministration of that Department, I pronounce essentially
1883] Carl Schurz 169
false, and I shall now briefly review those among them
which can pretend to any importance.
On page 244 you say:
Another advantage gained by the railroads had its origin
in an opinion given by Attorney-General Black in 1857, when
the railroad companies were anxious to obtain certified lists
of their lands before they had been earned. Mr. Black
held that these lists were simply in the nature of information
from the records of the Department, and that he could see no
objection to issuing them to any person who desired to make
a proper use of them, just as any other information would be
furnished from the records; and that they could have no in
fluence on the title to the lands. Under this opinion the
Department issued the certified lists as requested; but in
May, 1880, the Secretary of the Interior decided that when
any of his predecessors have certified lands under railroad
grants, their acts are final and conclusive, and binding upon
him as their successor. He further held that a complete
legal title was conveyed by such certified lists, and that the
latter were in all respects equivalent to patents.
This can have but one meaning, and it has been so
understood by all the newspapers which have commented
upon it — that certified lists of lands, issued without the
lands having been earned by the railroad companies,
merely in the nature of information, without any inten
tion of conveying title thereby, were decided by me, as
Secretary of the Interior, to have conveyed to the railroad
companies complete legal title to the lands so listed.
You cannot but know that this is false. The only
decision I can find to which your statement can possibly
refer is the one in the case of Charles Brown vs. the
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, rendered by
me May 4, 1880. The merits of the case had already
been passed upon by my predecessor, Secretary Zachariah
170 The Writings of [1883
Chandler, on August 31, 1876. They had also been
covered by a decision of the United States Circuit Court
for the eighth circuit, Judge Dillon presiding, as follows:
"The title to the tract of land in controversy in this
suit was, by the Act of 1856, vested in the State of Iowa.
The tract in question was within the terms of the Act of
1856, and when it was selected and the selection approved
and certified by the Commissioner of the General Land
Office, the title became perfect in the State. - Every act
had then been performed necessary to make the title of
the State complete. " (Duray vs. Hallenbeck.)
The Act of 1856 was an act granting land to the State
of Iowa to aid in the construction of the Missouri and
Mississippi Railroad (now the Chicago, Rock Island and
Pacific Railroad Company). As you know, land grants
for the benefit of railroads were at that time made to the
States wherein the roads were to be built, the lands to
be transferred by the States to the companies. In the
original granting act here referred to, as well as the act
amendatory thereof, it was expressly and specifically
provided that complete legal title should be conveyed to
the State and the company by certified lists, and in no
other way. Moreover, the conveyance of title by cer
tification was provided for by a general statute enacted
in 1854, being now Section 2449 of the Revised Statutes.
It is as follows :
Where lands have been or may hereafter be granted by
any law of Congress to any one of the several States or
Territories, and where such law does not convey the fee
simple title of the lands, or require patents to be issued
therefor, the lists of such lands which have been or may
hereafter be certified by the Commissioner of the General
Land Office, under the seal of his office, either as originals or
copies of the originals or records, shall be regarded as con
veying the fee simple of all the lands embraced in such lists,
1883] Carl Schurz 171
or that are of the character contemplated by such act of
Congress and intend to be granted thereby; but where lands
embraced in such lists are not of the character embraced in
such acts of Congress and are not intended to be granted
thereby, the lists, so far as these lands are concerned, shall
be perfectly null and void, and no right, title, claim or
interest shall be conveyed thereby.
This statute would have covered the case completely,
and made it my clear duty to recognize the certified lists as
conveying title, even had the granting act not specifically
provided for this and no other mode of conveyance.
And out of this state of facts you constructed the slander
ous story that I had made a law of my own, for the benefit
of railroad corporations, by which unearned lands could
be surreptitiously put into their possession. As to the
conveyance of unearned lands in that way, a little honest
inquiry would have acquainted you with the fact that
when, during my administration, a case in which unearned
lands had by mistake been put upon such a list came to my
notice, the list was at once cancelled, and the clerk
responsible for the mistake promptly punished.
A word about my ruling, that when any of my pre
decessors had certified lands under railroad grants, their
acts were final and conclusive, and binding upon me as
their successor. This, too, you treat as an unscrupulous
contrivance of mine. You are a lawyer, practising before
the Departments. Are you so ignorant as not to know
that while principles of administration and rules of
practice and the like may be changed, the adjudications in
any specific case by any one Secretary have always been
held to be final and conclusive and binding upon his
successors, unless new and essential facts be adduced
which were not before the Secretary making the decision,
or a new state of the law? Have you not ordinary sense
172 The Writings of [1883
enough to see that this must be so, for if it were not,
everybody who had a decision rendered against him would
have his case reopened at the incoming of a new Adminis
tration and that the whole time of the Departments would
be absorbed by rehearing and deciding the same cases
over and over? If you have never heard of this, you may
learn what everybody else knows by reading the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
United States vs. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Peters, and
the opinions of Attorney-Generals, vol. 2, pp. 9 and 464;
vol. 4, p. 341; vol. 5, pp. 29 and 123; vol. 9, pp. 101, 301
and 387; vol. 12, p. 358; vol. 13, pp. 33, 226 and 456.
But you can scarcely plead ignorance of this, for all these
authorities are quoted in that very decision of mine, the
decision of May 4, 1880, to which your statement above
quoted refers.
This would seem sufficient to show what you are capable
of in the way of reckless falsification, and I might dismiss
this branch of the subject were there not a few more
flowers too fragrant to be left unnoticed.
On page 246 of your article you say:
But they [the railroad corporations] were still exposed to
possible danger under the adjudications referred to, and
naturally felt the need of some further security. This they
found in an opinion of Attorney-General Devens, dated June
5, 1880, and asked for by Secretary Schurz, as "an authorita
tive expression of his views." Although the distinguished
Secretary is not a lawyer, he is uncommonly skilled in the use
of English words, and perfectly familiar with their import,
and it seems a little remarkable, therefore, that he should
have found it necessary to ask for this legal advice, in view
of the clear and unmistakable language of three decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United States on the very question
now submitted, with others, for interpretation. But this
opinion of the Attorney-General is still more remarkable than
1883] Carl Schurz 173
the request of the Secretary, and cannot fail to surprise every
member of the legal profession who may chance to read it.
It is a part, and a most important part, of the duties
of the Attorney- General, the highest law officer of the
Government, to give legal advice to the heads of the
Executive Departments, who are not presumed to be
lawyers, and sometimes are not. It is, therefore, not
only natural, but it may be looked upon as a matter of
duty, that the heads of the Departments should ask for
such advice when they have to decide disputed points of
law. That the point on which I asked advice was a
disputed one among lawyers appears from the simple
fact that you hold one opinion upon it and Attorney-
General Devens another. There is one reason imaginable,
and only one, why under such circumstances the head of
a Department, "not a lawyer," might hesitate to ask
the Attorney- General for advice. It is, that he might
consider the Attorney-General incompetent as a jurist,
or corrupt as an officer. How was this in Attorney-
General Devens' s case? He is highly respected by the
profession as a lawyer. I have long known him, and the
country knows him, as the very soul of honor. The State
of Massachusetts is evidently of the same opinion. He
was a judge there before being called to the Attorney-
General's duties, and no sooner had he left the Cabinet,
than he was placed as a justice on the supreme bench of
that Commonwealth. There he is now. Can you tell
any reason why this man as Attorney- General should not
be trusted for his legal advice on a disputed question of
law by a Secretary "not a lawyer"? Do you know any
thing about Judge Devens calculated to make it appear
"a little remarkable" that he should be so trusted? For
when you say that the request of the Secretary of the
Interior for legal advice was "a little remarkable," and
174 The Writings of [1883
the advice given by the Attorney-General "still more
remarkable," you evidently mean to insinuate that the
Secretary of the Interior, and still more the Attorney-
General, were under "railway influence." If you know
anything to substantiate this insinuation you should not
withhold it, for, while I am only a journalist, the late
Attorney- General, Mr. Devens, is on the supreme bench
of Massachusetts, and the people of that State are on
public grounds obviously entitled to the benefits of your
knowledge.
The subject of my request for advice and of the Attorney-
General's opinion was the question whether land-grant
railroads were entitled to indemnity only for lands sold,
reserved or disposed of by the United States, within the
granted limits, between the passage of the granting act
and the definite location of the line, or also for lands sold,
etc., within the granted limits before the passage of the
granting act. The latter view, more favorable to the rail
road companies, had always been held and acted upon by
the Department when I came into office. In 1875 Justice
Davis, in the case of the Leaven worth, Lawrence and Gal-
veston Railroad Company vs. the United States, delivered
an opinion favorable to the former rule. There were also
other conflicting decisions. Now, you present the matter
in your article as if I had resorted to every device to up
hold the rule more favorable to the companies against the
opinion expressed by Justice Davis.
This, you cannot but know, is false again. What are
the facts? Having laid down for the action of the De
partment the principle that it should give to the corpora
tions nothing which it was not under a strict construction
of the law absolutely bound to give, I accepted the opinion
of Justice Davis as the principle to govern my decisions
in such cases, and subsequently, in 1879, embodied that
principle in a paragraph put by my order in the instruc-
1883] Carl Schurz 175
tions issued by the General Land Office to the local land
officers. It was as follows: ''In the adjustment of grants
for railroads the principle has, until recently, prevailed
that indemnity was allowed for all lands sold, reserved
or disposed of within the granted limits, whether such sale,
reservation or disposal occurred before or after the grant
ing act; and the certifications and patents have been
executed in conformity thereto. In accordance with the
recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the
Leaven worth, Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company
vs. the United States, it is held by the Department that
indemnity can only be allowed for lands sold, reserved or
disposed of in the granted limits by the General Govern
ment after the granting act and prior to the time when the
railroad right attached, unless the grant be one of quantity
specifically set forth in the act. " And to this I caused to
be added a rule which arrested ever so much loose practice
advantageous to the corporations, and which is still in
force, to this effect: "In the adjustment of all grants it
consequently becomes necessary to know for what lands
lost in place the indemnity selections are made, and with
the view to that end you will require the companies to
designate the specific tracts for which the lands selected
are claimed. " If you do not appreciate the bearing of this
instruction, I am sure the land-grant railroads do.
It is clear, therefore, that far from trying to prevent the
introduction of the principle set forth in Justice Davis 's
decision as the rule of Departmental action, I introduced
it myself, and my rulings were made in accordance with
it until the last months of my administration, when, in
consequence of the protests of parties interested, and the
arguments urged by respectable attorneys, the question
was submitted to the Attorney-General, and I was over
ruled by him. Neither was his opinion only a suggestion
that in view of conflicting decisions of the courts "it would
176 The Writings of [1883
seem that the safe course for the Department would be
to return to its original construction"; but after quoting
the conflicting opinions of judges, the Attorney- General
says, in the most positive language: "In direct answer to
your second inquiry, I am therefore of opinion that the
road is entitled to indemnity, provided the lands can be
found within the proper limits, for the lands which it
may have lost by reason of the fact that lands within the
granted limits were sold or preempted previously or sub
sequently to the date of the grant. " And then the opinion
concludes in these words: "In view of the interest mani
fested in the question by you, and on account of their
relation to other railroads than the one immediately
concerned, I have felt it my duty fully to hear arguments
of all other parties who have deemed that rights might
be affected by any opinion which should be given in the
present case. "
Do you find it still a little remarkable that I should have
asked for a legal opinion in this matter, or that, when it
had been given with such positiveness and so unusually
solemn an assurance of careful consideration, I should have
deemed it my duty to follow it? If you do, you will have
to find it "still more remarkable" that, subsequently,
Justice Miller, of the Supreme Court, in the case of
Barney vs. Winona, and St. Peter Railroad Company vs.
McCrarys (Report 421), decided, United States District
Judge Nelson concurring, as follows:
I am of opinion that, by the true construction of the act
of Congress of March 3, 1857, granting lands to the territory
of Minnesota, the indemnity clause was intended to include
alternate sections within the prescribed limit which had been
sold by the United States or lost by preemption prior to the
date of the grant, as well as such as might be sold between that
time and the location of the road. And without further com
ment on the cases of the Leaven worth, Lawrence and Gal-
1883] Carl Schurz 177
veston Railroad Company vs. the United States, and the
Burlington and Missouri Railroad Company vs. the United
States, / do not believe the Court in those cases intended to
establish a different doctrine.
This is as direct and strong an endorsement of Attorney-
General Devens's opinion as can possibly be imagined.
Justice Miller, who is certainly a member in good stand
ing of the legal profession, if he " chanced to read" that
opinion, evidently was not "surprised" at it but simply
agreed with it ; and so he tells me that I was mistaken as
to the import of the Leavenworth, Lawrence and Gal-
veston decision in giving the instructions above quoted,
and that the Attorney- General was right in overruling
them, and that you are very wide of the mark in antici
pating a unanimous verdict of the legal profession against
the latter.
And this case, in which the Interior Department had to
yield to legal authority, which it did very reluctantly, is
the identical case which you in your article call a " shame
ful prostitution of the Land department. "
However, even this flight of fanciful eloquence does not
fill the measure of your ambition. You go on to say
(page 248) :
But the most remarkable fact remains to be stated. The Land
department having procured the opinion of the Attorney-
General justifying this wholesale plunder of the public
domain is still not satisfied. The opinion, it should be re
membered, follows the decision of the Supreme Court as to
the specific case of reserved lands. It admits that for them
no indemnity can be allowed. But the Department disregards
this opinion in the interest of the railroads when it becomes
an obstacle to their purposes. I understand that the Atchi-
son, Topeka and Santa Fe road has been allowed an illegal
excess of indemnity for lands reserved at the date of its grant,
amounting to about 800,000 acres, according to the principle
VOL. IV 12.
178 The Writings of [1883
affirmed in the case of the Leaven worth, Lawrence and Gal-
veston Railroad against the United States. Of the excess
more than 400,000 acres have been awarded contrary to the
opinion of the Attorney-General and since it was given.
This is, indeed, "the most remarkable fact, " to be stated ;
for he who inquires at the Interior Department will learn
that, while Attorney- General Devens's opinion was given
in 1880, and granted lands were patented the same year,
the last approval of indemnity land to the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad was made on April 13,
1875, two years before he became Attorney-General, and
I, Secretary of the Interior. There is evidently a limit to
the "shameful prostitution of the Land department,"
but there seems to be none to the cool, unblushing and
elaborate audacity of your misrepresentations.
I should stop here were not this letter intended for the
public as well as for yourself. To the public a word should
be said about your general allegation that the Interior
Department almost invariably decided in favor of the
railroad companies and against the settlers. When you
wrote this you had before your eyes the testimony of the
chief of the railroad division of the General Land Office
given before a Senate committee. In reply to a question
concerning the general drift of decisions, he said :
I find on examination that during the year ended Decem
ber 31, 1 88 1, there was final action pursuant to office and
Department decisions in about 824 cases between settlers and
companies, in about 635 of which cases the land in contro
versy was finally awarded to the settlers, and their filings or
entries allowed or permitted to stand awaiting completion, or
approved for patenting; and in about 189 cases the land was
awarded to the companies, and the filings or entries of the
settlers cancelled. In addition, some 227 applications to file
or enter land within the limits of grants and reserved therefor
were finally rejected.
1883] Carl Schurz 179
Part of the year referred to was within the term of my
administration, and all, or almost all, of the decisions
made were under the rules and principles sustained or
established during that period. I have no doubt that
the record of the other years of my administrative term
will, on examination, turn out to be about the same.
One point more remains to be touched. If you had
intended to be in the least degree truthful and fair in the
presentation of the spirit governing my administration
of the Interior Department, you would, together with the
acts which you thought to be in favor of the railroads,
have mentioned at least some of my decisions and rulings
adverse to them. It would not have been necessary to
go into elaborate detail; but from the many rulings,
instructions and decisions you would have felt in honor
bound to point out at least one which was of peculiar
interest and attracted much attention. It was my de
cision of July 23, 1878, in the case of Nelson Dudymott
on his appeal from a decision of the General Land Office.
I ruled that when the act making a grant of land to a
railroad company provided that all the lands so granted
" which shall not be sold or disposed of by said company
within three years after the entire road shall have been
completed, shall be subject to settlement and preemption
like other lands, at a price not exceeding $1.25 per acre
to be paid to the company." This provision meant that
all lands not actually sold by the company three years
after the completion of the road should be thrown open
to settlement under the preemption law; and I forthwith
directed the Commissioners of the General Land Office
to instruct the local land officers accordingly. This was
done. The decision covered six of the land-grant roads
completed more than three years — the Union Pacific, the
Kansas Pacific, the Denver Pacific, the Sioux City and
Pacific, the Central Pacific and the Western Pacific.
i8o The Writings of [1883
It turned over to the settlers under the preemption law, at
the "Government price," a great many more millions
of acres than were ever covered by any decision or ruling
concerning indemnity. For this act you had no memory.
In the result of it you are personally concerned. The
railroad corporations rushed at me with urgent appli
cations for a reconsideration of the decision and a sus
pension of the instructions. I refused to suspend the
instructions ; and in a review of the decision on September
3, 1878, I reaffirmed it. The corporations then went
before the courts, and the Supreme Court finally decided
that, under the loose wording of the granting acts, the
covering of the granted lands with a mortgage, which the
companies had done as soon as they availed themselves
of the granting act, was a "disposition" of them within
the meaning of the law. Thus my decision was over
ruled, and I may say this was the keenest disappoint
ment I suffered while I was at the head of the Interior
Department.
Who was responsible for that loose wording of the law
which brought forth this decision of the Supreme Court,
and deprived the settlers of their preemption right to
untold millions of acres? When these granting acts were
passed you were a member of the National House of
Representatives, and also a member of the Committee
on Public Lands. The larger part of the time you were
chairman of that committee. You posed as the cham
pion of the homestead law and as the protector of the
settlers' rights and interests. They were given into your
official care. If there was a man in Congress who should
have considered it his solemn and especial duty to see to it
that in all these granting measures the settlers' rights and
interests be jealously guarded, and that no loose and
equivocal language creep in that might be interpreted to
their injury, you were that man ; and yet you sat there and
1883] Carl Schurz 181
voted for all these acts, whenever you voted at all, without
a single word of remonstrance or even of inquiry. Indeed,
almost all the other practices which you now complain
of as abuses existed when you were the chairman of the
committee whose principal duty it was to investigate
them and to provide a remedy. You failed to do so.
And now you do not blush to pursue, with wanton and
malignant falsehoods men whose office it became at a
later time — an office sometimes performed with great
regret — to execute the laws which, in great part at least,
through your neglect of duty, have become what they are.
FROM EX-PRESIDENT HAYES
SPIEGEL GROVE, March 20, 1883.
Your reply to Julian is capital. I read it to Mrs. Hayes.
You know there is a warlike side to her sympathetic nature.
She was delighted with it. Brother Julian is a censorious old
dog — soured and malignant. He was once too near to success
ever to forgive those who passed him in the race. Your
famous speeches in the anti-slavery conflict were no doubt a
great offense to him, but when you added to that triumph a
signal example of efficiency in the Executive Department
with which he was most familiar, you were guilty of a personal
affront which stirred his bile beyond control. You are square
with him now. He will not forgive you. You will hear from
him again.1 Thanks for your attention to the von Hoist
matter.
FROM THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON
CAMBRIDGE, April 5, 1883.
A Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune writ
ing of the condition of the Departments says of the Women
'On May 6, 1883, Hayes wrote: " I knew Julian would come back at
you. He is fond of controversy."
1 82 The Writings of [1883
there employed, "ill-health and physical weakness cause a
high average of absences among them, which interfere with
the regular work." I should be very glad, if you are willing
to give it, of a brief answer, from recollection, to these two
questions :
1 . Is there a higher average of absence among the women so
employed?
2. Is not any loss through physical weakness, as compared
with men clerks, balanced by gain in the steadier habits of
women in other ways? I had supposed so.
I only ask for a very brief answer and should like to use it
publicly.
The inference drawn by the Tribune writer (April i, 1883) is
that the proportion of women "will have to be diminished."
(I think the writer is a male clerk.)
TO THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON
The Evening Post, 210 BROADWAY,
NEW YORK, April 6, 1883.
According to my experience the correspondent of the
Tribune is substantially right. I have no statistics at my
disposal at present, but have frequently had occasion to
observe the fact in question.
Neither can I say that "the loss through physical
weakness as compared with male clerks is balanced by
gain in the steadier habits of female clerks in other ways. "
It is, I think, the experience of the Departments that the
average is on the whole more favorable on the side of the
male clerks. Many female clerks, perhaps a large majority
of them, do excellent work. But there are some, not
quite inconsiderable in number, who are irregular, pre
tentious, wayward and impatient of discipline, and they
run down the general average.
1883] Carl Schurz 183
TO B. B. CAHOON
NEW YORK, April 11, 1883.
Let me thank you for your kind letter of March 26th.
I should have answered it much more promptly had I not
been somewhat overcrowded with work. So you think
Mr. Julian was completely answered? I have been at
tacked and vilified a good deal. But nobody ever did it
so clumsily as Mr. Julian. He deserved what he got.
But I have had one great satisfaction on this occasion.
I spent a few days at Washington and went over my
decisions and records with some of my old officers in the
Interior Department to see whether there were any
vulnerable points in my administration. We did this as
impartially as we could, and I am happy to say, while
mistakes had been made in small things as will always be
the case, we did not find anything of importance that
would not stand the most searching investigation and
criticism. And that, I think, is the judgment of my
successors. It is the kind of record I want to leave to
my children.
What you say about the two old parties and about the
tariff is perfectly true. But it is in my opinion by no
means certain that the tariff question will be much of an
issue in the next Presidential campaign. It would be if
the Democrats had courage enough to tackle it at the
next session of Congress. But whether they will have that
courage is very doubtful. I shall not be surprised if one
of the free-trade Democrats should bring in a bill with a
great flourish of trumpets to have it quietly smothered
by his party friends. Such things have been seen before,
and the Democratic party may be foolish enough to try-
it again. It is easy to see that if they let the next session
pass without doing anything, their position on that ques
tion will be very weak and unmeaning.
1 84 The Writings of [1883
On the whole, however, I think we are gaining as to the
general character of our political life. The reform move
ment has won some important positions and the ear of the
people. There will be a rearrangement of parties, prob
ably, in a very few years. But it is difficult to say upon
what dividing question it will take place. Meanwhile,
we must watch and do the best we can.
TO GEORGE W. JULIAN
NEW YORK, May 9, 1883.
Sir: The public letter you recently addressed to me is
in point of argument so wild and absurd that it appears
more like a joke than a serious thing. It seems you desire
it to be treated as the latter. A rapid analysis will expose
its folly.
You accuse me of having devised some devilish machin
ery for conveying to railroad companies lands which do
not belong to them. To this end you attack a decision
of mine in the case of Brown vs. the Chicago, Rock
Island and Pacific Railroad Company. In that decision
I recognized that company as entitled to certain lands,
showing that the title of the company through the State
had already been affirmed by the United States Circuit
Court for the eighth circuit thus: "The tract in question
was within the terms of the act of 1856, and when it was
selected and the selection certified by the Commissioner of
the General Land Office, the title became perfect in the
State. Every act had then been performed to make the
title of the State complete." (Duray vs. Hallenbeck.)
I showed further that the matter had also been passed
upon by my predecessor, Mr. Chandler, in the same sense,
in the case of Bell vs. the Chicago, Rock Island and
1883] Carl Schurz 185
Pacific Railroad Company, in which decision he said with
regard to the certification of the lands:
The line of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company
(of which the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
Company is the successor) was definitely located prior to
March 3, 1857, and upon the application of an agent of the
State of Iowa, appointed by the governor of said State,
the lands in question were on December 27, 1857, duly certi
fied to the State for the benefit of said company. If there
had been any irregularities in the selection and certification
of these lands to the State and the granting of them by the
State to the company, these were waived and all prior acts
treated as valid.
In my decision I thereupon disclaimed jurisdiction over
the lands, for the following reasons: "i. These lands
were certified to the State by my predecessors, and their
acts are final and conclusive and binding upon me as
their successor. (United States vs. Bank of the Metropolis,
15 Peters; two Attorney-Generals' opinions, p. 9, id. 464,
etc.) 2. The certification of these lands invested the
State with a complete legal title to the same (Duray vs.
Hallenbeck), which was in all respects equivalent to
patents. "
This is the devilish contrivance of mine to give to a
railroad what did not belong to it. In my first letter I
showed that the conveyance of lands by certified list is
provided for by general statute, as it is also specially
provided for by many of the granting acts. In an act
amendatory of the granting act here in question it is
spoken of as a matter of course.
What, then, is the trouble here? You say that in this
case the certification was all wrong and worth nothing.
Why? Because — I quote your own language — "the grant
is in pr&senti, and the title passed to all the lands in it by
1 86 The Writings of [1883
the grant itself. " Was not the road entitled to the lands
in question? You affirm yourself that it was. You say
expressly: "There is thus no controversy whatever about
your action in recognizing as valid the certified lists re
ferred to. " And "the certified lists referred to" were the
only ones contemplated in my decision. The only trouble,
in your own words, is "that the Act of 1856 does convey the
fee simple title of the lands in dispute, and, therefore, that
the lists which pretend to convey them are perfectly null
and void." And yet, "there is no controversy whatever
about my action in recognizing as valid the certified lists
referred to." Your logic is too deep for this world. In
the same breath you affirm that by my decision no land
was given to the railroad to which it was not entitled, that
I had concocted a devilish scheme to give to the road
what did not belong to it by recognizing the lists certified
to by my predecessors and that I did right l ' in recognizing
as valid the certified lists referred to." A man grown
so blind in his fury as to box his own ears is always a
ludicrous spectacle.
I might leave this matter here on your own showing,
but will add for your inforrnation that certified lists have
their use even when a land grant is made in prczsenti.
The grant usually refers to so and so many sections of
land on each side of the road. The certified lists specify
the sections and identify them by numbers according
to the survey, and thus they become evidence of title
attaching to specific tracts. It is in this sense that the
Act of 1854 providing for conveyance of title by certified
list applies to grants in prcesenti like the one in question.
The issue of specified lists is therefore not only a general
practice, but a necessity where patents are not specially
provided for or where the tracts granted are not specific
ally identified in the granting act. This disposes of one-
half of your letter.
1883] Carl Schurz 187
Your next charge is equally portentous. It is that I
committed the crime of asking the Attorney-General for
legal advice in a case on which the Attorney- General's
opinion did not agree with your own. This accusation is
sufficiently preposterous in itself but the circumstances of
the case serve to show its venom. In 1875 Justice Davis,
of the Supreme Court, delivered in the Leaven worth,
Lawrence and Galveston Railroad case, an opinion which
could be interpreted as restricting in a certain way the
right of land-grant railroads to indemnity lands. My
predecessor, Mr. Chandler, did not so construe it, but
maintained the old regulations more favorable to the
railroads. So I found them when I came into office in
1877. Being determined to concede to the corporation
nothing but what, under a strict construction of the law,
they were entitled to, I adopted the interpretation of
Judge Davis 's decision most unfavorable to the railroads,
and changed the regulations governing the action of the
Land Office, accordingly. After these new regulations
had been in operation a considerable time, questions arose
before the Department as to their correctness in point of
law. As is customary and proper, and as every conscien
tious executive officer will do, I submitted the matter to
the Attorney- General for legal advice. After hearing
full argument the Attorney- General ruled in the clearest
and most emphatic terms, that my interpretation of the
Davis decision was wrong, and that, as to the point at
issue, I had to return to the rule laid down and observed
by my predecessors. This I did, not hastily and joyfully,
as you falsely assert, but reluctantly; for the Attorney-
General's opinion was given on June 5, 1880, and I
changed the instructions to the Land Office accordingly
on October 16, 1880, more than four months afterward.
And this you call criminal eagerness on my part to serve
the railroads,
1 88 The Writings of [1883
Every sane man, looking at these undeniable facts, will
naturally conclude that had I wanted to favor the cor
porations, I should simply have permitted the rules
governing the Land Office to stand as they had always
stood, and as my predecessor, Mr. Chandler, had main
tained them for nearly two years after the decision in the
Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston case. This is
clear. If there is any fault to be found with me at all, it
might be, not that I favored the corporations, but that,
instead of changing my ruling unfavorable to their in
terests promptly after the authoritative opinion of the
Attorney- General, I did it reluctantly and hesitatingly,
waiting more than four months. After all this, to accuse
me of undue eagerness to serve the railroads is madness
or malice. Take your choice.
The same applies to what you say of a subsequent
decision of Justice Miller, in which that eminent Judge
clearly and emphatically indorses the opinion of Attorney-
General Devens. You argue that Justice Miller, if he did
not agree with the Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston
decision, should have entered a dissenting opinion when
the decision was rendered. But Justice Miller did not say
at all that he disagreed with it. What he did say was
that, in his opinion, the Court did not in that decision
"intend to establish a different doctrine" from that which
had prevailed before ; in other words, he decided that your
interpretation of that and other similar decisions was
wrong, and that the construction put upon them by
Attorney-General Devens was right. What sane man
will call that inconsistency?
Your third point against me was that the Interior
Department under my administration "disregarded even
this opinion of the Attorneji-General in the interests of the
railroads when it became an obstacle to their purposes, "
by awarding four hundred thousand acres of indemnity
1883] Carl Schurz 189
lands to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad,
"contrary to the opinion of the Attorney- General and
since it was given." I thereupon showed that "while
Attorney-General Devens's opinion was given in 1880,
and granted lands were patented the same year, the
last approval of indemnity lands (the only kind of lands
referred to in the opinion) to the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad was made on April 13, 1875, two years
before he became Attorney-General and I, Secretary of the
Interior. " You had to admit that your charge was false.
The difference between awarding, contrary to the opinion
of the Attorney-General, indemnity lands not granted, on
the one hand, and the patenting of granted lands on the
other, is simply the difference between allowing the road
what was not due to it, in the one case, and allowing it
what was due to it in the other. The former I did not ;
the latter I did. And if it should be found, as you say it
may, that during some period in the past the road had
received lands in excess, then the Land Office, in the
adjustment of the grant, will take the proper steps to
rectify the mistake, a thing which was done during my
administration, repeatedly, in similar cases. But your
charge that I favored the railroad to the prejudice of the
United States is just as false and absurd in its second
form as it was in the first.
But more. Your general allegation that the Interior
Department almost invariably decided in favor of the
railroads and against the settlers, I confuted by quoting
the sworn testimony of the chief of the railroad division
of the General Land Office, that in one year, when the
rulings and principles established and sustained during my
administration were in force, of the office and Department
decisions in 824 cases, in 635 tlie land in controversy was
finally awarded to the settlers, and in 189 to the railroads.
What now? The only escape you find is in saying that
19° The Writings of [1883
your general allegation " related to the general adminis
tration of the Land department during a long series of
years." And you significantly add: "If you made any
such decisions (adverse to the railroads) I had nothing to
do with them ; my task was to show that for nearly a third
of a century the Land department to a very great extent
has been the servant of the railways and not the people. "
This is a highly characteristic admission. It was, then,
not your "task" to speak the truth, but to make a case
by suppressing the truth. When a decision was made in
favor of a railroad, no matter whether it was ever so just,
you adduce it as proof that the railroads controlled the
Land department. When three times as many decisions
were made in favor of the settlers against the railroads you
had "nothing to do with them. " This kind of suppression
of the truth is a simple falsification of facts. Your self-
imposed "task" was, therefore, that of a falsifier, con
victed as such by your own statement.
The same recklessness appears in your assertion that five
or six of the Department decisions under my adminis
tration have been overruled by my successors. I have
inquired into that matter, and am informed by very
competent authority that this is true only of one, the
decision in the Gates case. This would demonstrate the
rather remarkable fact that, although I have been out of
office for two years, but one of the hundreds of decisions
made during the four years of my administration has by
my successor been set aside. I might almost thank you
for the opportunity you give me of showing an infallibility
on my part and that of my legal advisers which I should
have hesitated to claim. The same might be said if there
were six such cases instead of one.
But, to tell the exact truth, I have been overruled in two
other instances: once when I had issued instructions to the
General Land Office restricting the claims of the railroads
1883] Carl Schurz 191
to indemnity lands, the same instructions spoken of above;
and then when I decided that the unsold lands of six
land-grant railroads should be thrown open to settlement
at the Government price. In the first case I was overruled
by the Attorney- General, whose opinion was subsequently
indorsed by Justice Miller's decision, and in the second case
I was overruled by the Supreme Court. In both cases I
had set aside the policy sustained by my predecessors, and
in both cases superior authority ruled that I had gone
beyond the intent of the law, not in favor of, but against
the interests of the railroads. When, in my first letter
to you, I mentioned that second decision of mine which
threw open to the settler many millions of acres — indeed,
so vast a quantity of land that all the land involved in the
indemnity controversies about which you throw up so
much dust appears as a miserable pittance in comparison
to it — your genius rose to its most brilliant effort to make
out that even in this case I was governed by railroad
influence. You called my whole proceeding "clap-trap,"
and then arraigned me as a traitor to the interests of the
American people — for what? For submitting to a de
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which
affirmed that the lands in question, although unsold, were
" disposed of" by mortgages, and could therefore not be
thrown open to settlement as I had directed, thus setting
aside my ruling point-blank, in the clearest language,
without the remotest possibility of a question as to its
meaning. Your accusation in this case is so unique that
it can not be explained by any ordinary mental process.
One might be inclined to feel your pulse, were there not
another explanation. But there is.
I showed in my first letter that in this case the railroads
concerned were saved by the loose wording of the granting
acts, and that these acts were framed and passed when you
were a member of the House of Representatives and a
192 The Writings of [1883
leading man in the Committee on Public Lands, for the
larger part of the time even its chairman. It was your
special duty to watch this kind of legislation with untiring
vigilance to protect the interests of the settlers. I showed
that you voted for all these large land grants, whenever
you voted at all, without a word of remonstrance, and that,
while almost all the other practices you now complain of as
abuses existed or grew up during that period, you never
exerted your influence to check or remedy them. The
loose language of the acts upon which the decision of the
Supreme Court above referred to was based, elicited not a
whisper from the leader of the Committee on Public Lands,
the spokesman of the settler. If you could not prevent
their adoption, you could at least protest against their
objectionable or ambiguous clauses. But your voice was
silent, and you simply voted "aye." Your record in the
Congressional Globe convicts you.
It is a fact known to every well-informed man that the
mischievous results of the land-grant system have sprung
from the reckless provisions of the granting acts, and not
from the faithlessness of those who had to administer the
laws as they stood. As one of the makers of those laws,
and especially as the one man whose special business it
was to watch and scrutinize them in behalf of the settlers,
you can not escape your responsibility. The public
records prove your failure in that duty. There is not a
man in the land from whom false accusations against an
executive officer would come with a worse grace than
from you.
But that was not your only failure. Worse remains
behind. At the close of your letter you address me in the
following tremendous language: "It seems utterly in
credible that you presided over the great home Depart
ment of the Government for four years ; and the fact that
the country has survived your administration is a fresh
1883] Carl Schurz 193
illustration of the power of republican institutions to
withstand the most deadly assaults. " A dreadful state
of things indeed! There was a Secretary of the Interior
so unscrupulous as to recognize as valid certified lists
about which "there is no controversy"; a Secretary who
did not blush to ask the Attorney- General for legal advice
and to follow it ; who dared to permit granted lands to be
patented, and who, after having tried to wrest many
millions of acres from the railroad corporations, had the
audacity to bow to an overruling decision of the Supreme
Court. That our republican institutions should have
endured such a strain is indeed almost incredible. But
the danger of the situation was vastly aggravated by the
singular circumstance that the whole American people
witnessed these open and notorious proceedings without
alarm. Only one man saw through it all, and you were
that man. What did you do? When all these terrible
things were going on, did we hear the blast of your bugle-
horn summoning all friends of the imperiled Republic to
the rescue? No. Where were you, then, at that awful
crisis?
Alas, you were otherwise engaged. You. were then
going round among the railroad kings offering them your
talents for a consideration. And only when the railroad
kings failed to purchase your services, you became
conscious of your own exceeding virtue and the total
depravity of everybody else.
This revelation, however, is not surprising. You had
already unmasked yourself before. Had you been sincere
you would have been content to speak the truth. Instead
of reviling with ridiculous charges a man who in official
station had proved more dutiful than you, you would have
fairly recognized my earnest endeavor to reduce the
allowances of the corporations to the narrowest limit
under the law. But it seems to be the uncontrollable
VOL. IV.— 13
194 The Writings of [1884
propensity of hypocrites to overdo what they attempt.
Even before the evidence was all in you convicted your
self by the virulent extravagance of your pretended zeal.
Here I take leave of you. As you now stand before the
public I shall pass over without notice what you may still
be moved to say.
FROM JOHN A. LOGAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 1884.
Confidential.
My dear Sir: Is there any good reason why my old
friend, the Hon. Carl Schurz, should not be a friend just now,
and help
Yours truly,
JOHN A. LOGAN.
Hon. C. SCHURZ,
NEW YORK.
This is the only letter I have written to any one, save in
reply to those written me.
TO JOHN A. LOGAN
NEW YORK, Feb. 29, 1884.
My dear General: Your kind note reached me last
night. Were I not personally friendly to you, I should
answer in ambiguous phrase signifying nothing. But as
a friend I speak to you with that frankness which is
authorized by the confidence you show me in your letter.
I think you are doing yourself harm by permitting your
name to go before the Chicago Convention. No man is
benefited by failure in such an enterprise, and it is my
candid opinion that you are bound to fail. New York will
be the pivotal State in the coming election and I do not
Carl Schurz 195
believe you can carry it because on two points your
record is against you. There is probably no State in
which the civil service reform sentiment is stronger on
account of the wide-spread dissatisfaction here with
machine politics, and unfortunately you are counted
rather among the friends of the old system. And, sec
ondly, this being the financial center of the country, peo
ple here are very sensitive with regard to our financial
policy. This sensitiveness is likely to be greater now than
it has been since the restoration of specie payments, for
the reason that very dangerous consequences are appre
hended from the accumulation and the continued coinage
of silver dollars. In this respect your record on the specie
payment question would be fatal to you in this part of the
country.
Moreover, it seems to me impossible that you should
get the nomination, for another reason. To judge from
what I see and hear, and from the expressions of sentiment
which float through the press, there is in the Republican
ranks an almost unanimous voice in favor of nominating
Lincoln for the Vice-Presidency. This, of course, will
preclude your nomination.
I know, my dear General, that, as you are now situated,
many who want to appear as your friends will not tell
you the truth, and that you will be tempted not to regard
the telling of the truth, if it is unwelcome, as a sign of
friendly feeling. I sincerely wish all bitterness of experi
ence may be spared you in finding out which kind of
friendship is the best. I should not have said to you what
I have, did I not candidly and firmly believe that these
things are true, and that it is the duty of an old friend to
be perfectly frank, for the man who dissuades you from
exposing yourself to a certain and grievous disappoint
ment does you a real service.
196 The Writings of [1884
TO W. G. SHERMAN
45 EAST 68TH ST., NEW YORK,
March i, 1884.
Let me say in reply to your letter of February 25th, that
you entirely misconstrue what I said at Brooklyn1 if you
set me down as an "apologist of violent methods" such as
are used here and there in the South. On the contrary, I
abhor them as I abhor every crime, and as much as you
abhor them. But the question how that condition of
things can be changed for the better, is not one of mere
sentiment. And when you say that this matter must be
put forward by the Republican party as a political issue
on the ground that things have not improved in the South
since the war, — that on the contrary, they have grown
worse, — you expose yourself, as I pointed out at Brooklyn,
to the fatal reply that, as the Republican party has ac
complished no improvement during the nineteen years it
has been in power since the close of the war, it is useless
to ask again for the same thing that has proved itself so
ineffective, and that it is time to try some other kind of
remedy. It is evident that upon such an issue the Re
publican party can not rely for success.
My opinion is that a very considerable improvement
has taken place in the South at large since 1865 (although
in some localities the state of things is still very bad) , and
that, while the Government should exert the power the
Constitution gives it for the protection of citizens in the
exercise of their rights, a complete remedy, if there is one,
will be found only in the economic regeneration of the
South and in the division of the colored vote as well as
the white between different political parties.2
1 At a banquet, Feb. 22d, where independent Republicans gave notice
that they would oppose any candidate with an objectionable record. See
Schurz to Storey, Nov. i, 1891.
1 This letter was sent to the St. Louis address given on the letter to
1884] Carl Schurz 197
TO GUSTAV SCHWAB
45 EAST 68TH ST., NEW YORK,
March 21, 1884.*
My dear Mr. Schwab: I saw the Tribune only late
this afternoon, and found in it a statement that some of
my friends were engaged in raising a fund of $100,000 to
be presented to me. Upon further inquiry I learned that
you are the treasurer of a committee organized for that
purpose, and that a very considerable part of the sum
named is already available. Let me confess to you that
this matter is very embarrassing to me, not as though I
were in doubt as to the general line of conduct to follow,
but because I should be exceedingly sorry, in obeying my
impulse, to do anything that might in the least be liable
to be interpreted as a want of appreciation on my part of
the generous motives of my friends who prepared this
valuable surprise for me. Let me assure you that I
esteem it a great honor to have such friends, and that I
am proud of being thought by them deserving of such
rewards. Nobody can appreciate this more than I do.
At the same time I feel as if, while I am able to work, I
could not accept such sums of money without giving a
proper equivalent for them. This may be a mere matter
which it was an answer. A few days later it was returned with the
following note from General Sherman:
"912 GARRISON AVE., ST. Louis, March 5, 1884.
" Dear General: The similarity of names resulted in the carrier deliver
ing this letter. I don't know such a person as W. G. S , and as his
name is not in the directory, I think it best to send back the letter, with
the opinion that if such a person exists he is hardly worth your time or
notice.
"W. T. SHERMAN."
1 The original was in German. Probably the translation that was soon
printed in the New York newspapers, to explain the status to the con
tributors, was made by Mr. Schurz.
198 The Writings of [1884
of feeling, but as such it is of great importance to the
person concerned. To this feeling I should have given
decided expression had I been consulted when this enter
prise was begun. I consider it, therefore, proper, before
any formal presentation is made to me, to ask, through you,
my friends to forgive me if, with the highest possible
appreciation of their generous sentiments, I feel obliged
to decline in advance this valuable sign of their friendship
and esteem, so that no further steps be taken ; and I wish
to say further that I shall be indebted to you, dear Mr.
Schwab, if you will kindly return to the respective con
tributors the various sums paid into this fund. I am,
cordially and gratefully, your friend,
C. SCHURZ.
TO SIMON WOLF
NEW YORK, March 22, 1884.
I have received your letter by which your committee
invite me to attend a meeting of citizens of Washington
on the 24th inst.; or, if this be incompatible with my
engagements, to state in writing such views as may occur
to me with regard to the platform communicated to me
together with the invitation.
Not being able to be present at the meeting, I wish to
say here that most of the general propositions set forth in
the platform appear to me to be self-evident; and as to
their recognition, every candid observer will testify that
public sentiment has made great progress in our day,
although that progress may have been interrupted now
and then by temporary agitation. A great many of us
remember the time when " Sunday laws abridging re
ligious liberty" did not only prevent the working classes
from enjoying the public libraries, museums etc., but
where, in a great many places, they absolutely interrupted
1884] Carl Schurz 199
the ordinary modes of communication, such as railroads
and street cars, not to speak of other restrictions of a
similar character. When we compare in this respect the
opinions generally existing thirty years ago with those
existing now, we cannot fail to observe that there has been
a very marked change. Recently we witnessed in this
city some evidences of that change in the opening on
Sunday of an art exhibition, and the holding of Sunday
concerts for working people. This was accomplished
virtually without any struggle, and the result has gone
far to disarm adverse impressions and even to win the
approval of formerly opposing elements. It appears to
me certain that the advance of enlightened liberality
in these things will inevitably become more general and
cannot permanently be turned backward; and it is worthy
of note that this advance has so far effected itself without
very strong organized efforts to force it. I have no doubt
it will be so in the future. The progress of that liberality
will be all the more rapid, the more clearly it appears that
its results are really redounding to the mental and moral
elevation, and to the happiness of the people.
As to prohibition, it is, aside from the question of
principle, a matter of experience that wherever it has, on a
large scale, been tried, it has failed ; that is to say, instead
of accomplishing its professed object, namely, to improve
popular morals by rooting out the vice of intemperance,
it has simply served to impair the respect for law generally,
and to produce in that way demoralizing effects. That
intemperance is indeed a great evil no candid man can
fail to acknowledge ; but that evil cannot be exterminated
by measures prohibiting indulgences in themselves not
vicious, thus encroaching upon the domains of personal
rights.
It can be, and it has clearly in a great measure been,
reached effectively by the moral agencies at the disposal
200 The Writings of [1884
of society. This, of course, is not meant to exclude just
and proper license regulations.
As to the necessity of protecting the public school
system against sectarian control and of distributing the
burdens of taxation "equally," the general principles will
be readily subscribed to by a very large majority of the
American people, although the second postulate, equal
taxation, will be subject to very different interpretations
when such things as tariff duties are discussed.
FROM P. B. PLUMB
SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, May 6, 1884.
Four years ago you named to me five persons either of
whom you said could be elected if nominated by the Republi
cans. Three of them were Windom, Harrison, Sherman — the
others I do not recall.
As I am a delegate to Chicago and consequently burdened
with the responsibility of a choice, I am desirous of such ex
change of opinion as will enable me to see clearly. Kansas
is for Elaine very strongly — but willing to accept any one else
whose election would be more certain. We want success.
Naturally we think of New York, and wish to be sure of
carrying it. It is essential to Republican success — and there
is the usual contrariety of opinion as to who is strongest for
that purpose. Can you enlighten me?
While I do not go to the extent you do in some directions,
I am in accord with your general ideas of fitness, and desire
to aid in making a nomination which you and those like you
can cordially support.
TO P. B. PLUMB
X.
Private. no WEST 34TH ST., N. Y., May 12, 1884.
Your letter of the 6th inst. did not reach me until the
9th. I should have answered it at once had I not pre
ferred to wait for some information from the interior of
1884] Carl Schurz 201
the State which I expected, and which I have in the mean
time received.
New York must be considered a doubtful State. If the
Democrats nominate a decent man, it will require not
only a better candidate but also a united and strong effort
on the part of the Republicans to carry it. There is an
uncommonly large and influential independent element
here whose interest is mainly centered on the administra
tive reform question. This element is apt to develop
a strong campaigning force when its interest is well en
listed; it has in this respect on several occasions shown
remarkable efficiency. It will, I think, rally to the support
of any Republican candidate of unblemished character
who may be counted upon to conduct the National
Administration in accord with the reform idea. Of those
who have of late been most prominently mentioned as
possible Republican nominees, Edmunds would probably
be the strongest here ; but Gresham, Hawley, Lincoln and
several others would, I have no doubt, run well.
The two candidates most spoken of, Elaine and Arthur,
would here be the least acceptable. I know a great many
people in this State as well as outside of it, and I speak
advisedly when I express the opinion that Blaine cannot
possibly carry New York. In some papers I see it stated
that he would have the support of the Independents as
much as anybody. Such opinions are simply absurd. He
has, indeed, a good many enthusiastic friends who make
much noise but are not nearly strong enough to give him
the State ; on the other hand, he will not only not have the
united support of the Independents, but a very large por
tion of them will, in unison with a considerable number
of hitherto faithful Republicans, actively oppose him. I
see good reasons for apprehending that Elaine's nomina
tion would be followed instantly by a break. I am advised
by men who know the State thoroughly that in every one
202 The Writings of [1884
of the 12,000 school districts there are some Republicans
who quietly but firmly declare their determination under
no circumstances to vote for Elaine. That their number
is very large in this immediate vicinity I know from
personal observation. This feeling in New York would
scarcely remain without influence in Connecticut and New
Jersey. I have reports from Massachusetts that Elaine
would find it a desperate job to carry that State. It
looks very much as if Elaine's nomination would mean
disintegration and disaster from the very beginning.
Arthur stands much better. His Administration has
in many respects given satisfaction; especially among the
business men of this city he has many friends. But he
has been so much mixed up with faction fights in New York
politics and identified with a class of politicians who have
made themselves so odious with a majority of the party,
that he would lose a great many votes. The party support
would, especially in the country districts, be languid, and
the Independents would mostly treat the matter with
indifference. This, of course, is not the way to carry New
York under present circumstances. Moreover, there is
serious doubt as to whether he could carry Ohio — this on
account of the old Garfield feelings.
I write you this as the candid opinion of one who wants
to see the Republican party succeed and hopes to be able
to contribute his own efforts to that end, but who believes
also that in order to succeed, it must deserve and invite
success by a good and wise nomination.
FROM P. B. PLUMB
SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, May 25, 1884.
Private.
I duly received yours of I2th. I agree with you about New
York being doubtful — but if we can nominate a candidate
1884] Carl Schurz 203
who can carry Indiana, California, Nevada etc., we can get
along without it. While I do not believe in precisely the kind
of administrative reform you do, still I have no doubt that
any Republican who may be elected will carry out the exist
ing law, in obedience to his oath and to public sentiment.
If Elaine is objectionable why would not Mr. Tilden, for
instance, be equally objectionable? And to this complexion
it will come at last according to present indications. I concur
with you to the extent of saying that it is not wise to nomi
nate either Blaine or Arthur — and yet I regard Elaine's
nomination as very likely to happen. Who is to make
headway against him? The only really strong man is Mr.
Sherman (John), who is not yet really in the canvass. How
would he do? The General is talked of — objections being
that his wife's religion would offend many Presbyterians
and Methodists. Gresham is a good man, but little known.
Hawley is better, but from the East and from a small State.
I confess the more I think of it the more the muddle grows.
David Davis would be my solution, but he can't be
nominated.
TO P. B. PLUMB
no W. 34TH STR., NEW YORK, May 27, 1884.
Your note of the 25th has reached me. In my opinion
any calculation according to which the Republican party
can get along without New York in the Presidential
election is very faulty, for the same causes which make
certain candidates unavailable in this State will act with
similar force in others. Moreover, the business troubles
will have a decided influence upon the canvass. Do you
think that after the developments that have taken place
here, any Republican candidate whose record and char
acter are not entirely above question will have any chance
of success? It matters little who may be the nominee
on the other side. You know very well that there are
204 The Writings of [1884
thousands upon thousands of voters in the Republican
ranks, upon whom party allegiance sits very lightly at
present and whose criticism is always first directed against
their own party. It is needless to discuss whether this
should or should not be so, for it is a fact, and as a fact it
must be taken into account. I look upon the coming
election as very much in doubt generally, and as well-
nigh hopeless with any candidate who is in any way
objectionable.
I expect to be in Chicago during the Convention and
hope to have the pleasure of meeting you there.
TO G. W. M. PITTMAN
NEW YORK, June 15, 1884.
Your kind letter of the nth has reached me. I regret
most sincerely that we do not agree as to supporting Mr.
Elaine for the Presidency. Let me assure you it was by
no means with a light heart that I declared myself against
him. But I could not conscientiously do otherwise. The
Republican party has been called the party of moral ideas.
It once deserved that name. It has been regarded the
world over as the guardian of our National honor and good-
faith. We have now a question of political ethics to deal
with in which the character of the Republican party is
directly involved. There has been a good deal of demoral
ization and rottenness since the war, public and private,
in politics and business. Of late, the crop of shame and
disgrace has been rather abundant. And now the Re
publican party, the party of moral ideas, the standard-
bearer of National honor, is the first one to declare worthy
of the highest honors of the Republic a man who by his
public record, by his own published correspondence, stands
convicted of trading upon his high official position and
1884] Carl Schurz 205
power for his own pecuniary advantage. It says to the
youth of the country that such things may be done with
public approval, and that men who do it may become
Presidents of the United States if they are only "smart"
enough to strike a popular fancy.
The Republican party that does this plants a seed which,
if permitted to take root, will surely bear a terrible crop
of demoralization and corruption. It is not the Republi
can party I have been serving. The best service which, as
I think, can now be rendered to it and to the country, is
to prevent that dreadful aberration from bringing forth
its fatal fruit by making it manifest that a man with such
a record may be nominated but cannot be elected. This
is what, in my judgment, and I am glad to say in the
judgment of many thousands of Republicans, the honor
of the country and the safety of republican institutions
demand, and if I, as a citizen, have any duty to perform,
I conceive it to be in this direction.
There is, therefore, no prospect that we shall meet on
the Elaine side. May I not hope that we may meet on
the Anti-Blaine side before the end of the campaign?
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
no W. 34TH ST., June 28, 1884.
We are together against Blaine and for honest govern
ment. I should be glad to see you in the Presidential
chair on the 4th of March, 1885. If my vote could put
you there, I should not hesitate a moment. If you are
nominated, I shall work for your election to the best of
my ability. I feel, therefore, that I can speak to you as a
friend.
I have no right to meddle with the business of the Demo
cratic party, but I know you will not consider it an in-
206 The Writings of [1884
trusion if I give you my view of the situation. The revolt
in the Republican party is at this moment very strong.
But it would be a mistake to consider Elaine a weak can
didate. He is weak in his own party, but he will have the
support of the Irish dynamite faction, and the speculators
and rascals will flock to him without distinction of pre
vious condition. He will have a large campaign fund at
his disposal. The Democratic candidate in order to beat
him will, therefore, need the support of the Independent
Republican vote to make up for desertions and to furnish
the necessary majority. The Independent Republicans
will undoubtedly cast a more than sufficient number of
votes, if the character of the Democratic candidate be
such as to overcome this disinclination to "vote for a
Democrat." That disinclination still exists with many.
If the Independent Republicans feel themselves compelled
to nominate a "conscience ticket, " and thereby to declare
their distrust of the Democratic nominees, the whole
movement will be so seriously crippled as to leave the
result doubtful. Only in case they vote directly for the
Democratic candidates, their votes thus counting double
as against Elaine, will the result be certain.
There are only two possible Democratic candidates for
whom that vote can be counted upon — you and Cleveland.
The nomination of either of you would make success
reasonably sure. Cleveland's enemies say that he cannot
carry New York on account of the hostility of Tammany.
This is nonsense. What Tammany's proclaimed hostility
and friendship respectively effect has been seen in the
cases of Tilden and of Hancock. The hostility of Tam
many would very largely increase the Independent vote
for Cleveland. I am sure he would carry the State by an
immense majority. Your enemies say that you cannot
be elected on account of your Dover speech. This is
nonsense also. The Independent Republicans who have
1884] Carl Schurz 207
revolted against Blaine understand that speech and do not
care anything about it. What begins to tell more against
you is the apparent friendship of Tammany. It would not
be a good thing for you to appear as the club with which
Tammany Hall killed Cleveland because he was too much
of a reformer. At any rate, the nomination of either of
you would reasonably insure success. The nomination of
any other man would be apt seriously to discourage and
weaken that Independent element whose vote is necessary
to defeat Blaine.
I am sure it is as clear to you as it is to me, what a
terrible calamity for the country Elaine's election would
be. It is equally clear that if the Democratic party,
under circumstances so unusually favorable, fails again, it
will be eternally damned for incorrigible stupidity as well
as want of patriotism. The coming election is therefore
for it a matter of life or death.
As between you and Cleveland the "question of merit"
is easily decided. Of course, your long and great career
gives you the strongest title to the first place. If there is
any other question it is that of availability. In that
respect the difference between you would probably be
slight, but between either of you and any other possible
candidate it would be very great.
Naturally, you desire to be nominated, and you have
my hearty wishes. But if it should turn out that you
cannot be nominated, I take it for granted that you would
desire the nomination of the man who, next to you, can
command the support necessary to success ; and that man
is Cleveland. I take it that Cleveland wants to be
nominated, but that in case that is impossible, he would
desire the nomination of the other strongest man, and
that would be you. These would be the natural senti
ments of two patriotic men. Would it not be equally
natural there should be an understanding between the
208 The Writings of [1884
friends of these two patriotic men in the Convention, to
the effect, that, as soon as it becomes reasonably clear
that the one cannot be nominated, his forces go over
to the other to secure his nomination, so that in any event
the success of the common cause be safe? The expressed
wish of the candidates would no doubt go very far to
bring about such an understanding. It would probably
be decisive.
I hope you will not charge me with unwarrantable
meddlesomeness for making a suggestion like this. My
excuse must be my profound anxiety that this Republic
be spared the terrible disgrace of Elaine's election and the
dangers of a Elaine Administration. There seems to be
cause for serious alarm in the confusion of counsel of
which the newspapers inform me.
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WASHINGTON, D. C., June 29, 1884.
I have just received your frank and friendly letter of yester
day and in the same spirit [I] respond to it.
I have often wondered how I became a candidate for Presi
dential nomination, for independent of other reasons I was
not only not seeking it but often seeking other things incon
sistent with it, such as following and declaring my real con
victions on measures and policies contrary to the will or whim
of my party.
However, so it is, and there are new contingencies out of
which my nomination is possible if, indeed, it is not probable.
That thoughtful and patriotic men should recoil from a Blaine-
Logan Administration is natural enough, and that you should
do so, I fully expected.
I am sure you know that I hold and shall treat all personal
questions and ambitions as quite secondary to the chief object
— a nomination by the Democratic Convention which shall
justify the combination of all the opposing forces to Blaineism.
1884] Carl Schurz 209
I do not believe you suspect me of any disposition to weaken
the tendencies and forces which may lead to Governor Cleve
land's nomination at Chicago. I am too grave about it to be
effusive, but a fortnight ago when Dorsheimer, who has been
and is on very friendly terms with me, told me of his desire to go
to Saratoga and urge Cleveland's nomination, I lent him both
hands and the fullest assurance of my content and best wishes
for his success. It was then assumed by us both that Cleve
land would have an absolute majority of the State delegation
and under the unit rule would be presented as the choice of
the combined Democrats of the Empire State. But now
that plan appears to have been thwarted or weakened. The
decided preference manifested for Cleveland by the Republican
opposition to Elaine and Logan caused an effort to give him an
appearance of a solid support in New York, which has resulted
in embarrassment to Cleveland's especial supporters in his
own party in New York.
Telegrams from New York insisting that the South and West
should go solidly for him because New York was solid for him,
and then, e converse — that New York should go for him because
the other States were so, have undoubtedly created confusion
in men's minds and given rise to doubts whether he has that
strength at home which would enable him to carry New
York.
I am annoyed by anything that tends to jeopard the great
object I have in view, the defeat of the Republican party
under Elaine's leadership. Do not suppose for a moment
that I have lowered my ideals of duty or lost my sense of
responsibility to our country or abated that pride and self-
respect that restrain me from being an applicant for public
favor.
In the New York papers and in many [other] sources [I] see
accounts of Governor Cleveland's strength and then again the
most decided expressions of opposition to him. We who live
outside of New York cannot possibly comprehend the force
and direction of the currents and countercurrents in the rather
turbid pool of its politics, and I confess the study is not at
tractive to me.
VOL. IV. — 14
210 The Writings of [1884
I have wholly abstained from any participation or associa
tion with any of the local politicians, and among the few New
Yorkers who are personally desirous of my political advance
ment and are my friends, Cleveland finds favor and no opposi
tion. The banded "unions " which have been so fostered into
political action of late, and the issues they seek to create be
tween capital and labor, are dangerous to the welfare of all
classes. I fully agree with you that at such a time Elaine is
not a weak candidate before the masses of the people, and cer
tain elements heretofore acting commonly with the Democratic
party will be very apt to transfer their votes to a leader so
likely to produce public confusion, which is the harvest-time of
public plunderers.
My dear General, I am not [to] be a candidate by my own
presentation, but should other causes make me one I shall
be glad and grateful for your counsel and aid. The work
ahead of us to regenerate and reform measures and methods
of government, to raise its tone and level of administration will
demand our best energies and united effort. I write offhand,
but I hope transparently and satisfactorily and will be glad
if you will write me again. Your words will always have the
regard and respect which I [you] know I bear to you.
TO J. W. HOAG
NEW YORK, June 29, 1884.
Dear Sir : Your kind letter of the 25th inst. has reached
me. We have not circulated any "documents" yet, giv
ing elaborate reasons for our opposition to Elaine, but
only a short protest for signature, which has already
received a large number of names, all of Republicans who
refuse to vote for the candidates nominated at Chicago.
I enclose the heading of it, and I shall be glad to have your
signature too, which I hope you will give upon a candid
consideration of the case.
As you say you know that I was right in 1872, you will
1884] Carl Schurz 211
permit me to tell you why I believe I am right now.1
The greatest danger threatening our republican institu
tions is that deterioration of public morals which, although
leaving their form for the time being intact, corrupt their
substance. That demoralization will spread the more
rapidly and thus become the more pernicious, the more
it is tolerated by public opinion. This general proposition
you will certainly not deny. But it is useless to accept
it in theory if it is disregarded in practice.
The Republican Convention has nominated for the
Presidency a man who, by his own published correspon
dence, stands convicted of having traded upon his high
official position and power for his own pecuniary advan
tage. Of this the notorious "Mulligan letters" leave no
doubt. By nominating such a man the Republican party,
which once could justly call itself "the party of moral
ideas," says to this and coming generations, that in its
opinion such practices may not only be carried on with
impunity, but that men who indulge in them may still
be glorified with the highest honors and trusts of the
Republic — may become Presidents of the United States.
Have you considered what that means? It means the
planting of a seed which, if permitted to grow, will bear a
crop of demoralization and corruption hitherto scarcely
dreamt of. It means the poisoning of the ambition of our
American youth. It means the eventual destruction of
republican government by rot and disgrace.
There is but one remedy. It may be demonstrated
decisively and conclusively, that when a political party,
whatever its name or past career, is reckless enough to
nominate such a man, the American people may be
1 Mr. Hoag's letter contained this sentence: "I followed your lead in
1872 and knew you were right. I think you are wrong now, but would
be glad to see some of the reasons you give for taking the position you
do."
212 The Writings of [1884
counted upon to have moral spirit enough to defeat him.
This is the only remedy that will be effective. I therefore
consider the defeat of Mr. Elaine a moral necessity, and I
deem it my sacred duty as a citizen of this Republic, who
has its honor and its future at heart, to help [in] defeating
him to the best of my ability. If, as you say, I was right
in 1872, I feel profoundly that I am ten times more right
now.
May I hope that you will sign your name to the en
closed protest?
FROM JOHN B. HENDERSON
ST. Louis, Mo., July i, 1884.
My dear General : I intended to call on you personally in
New York, but I had only a few hours there, and those hours
were occupied in my private business.
In Augusta, I saw Mr. Blaine and had a conversation with
him in which he expressed regret — much regret — that you were
indisposed to support him. Indeed your rumored opposition
gives him more concern than that of any and all others.
It is now quite certain that not Governor Cleveland but
that old political trickster, Tilden, will be nominated at
Chicago. I know you cannot support him; and in case of his
nomination I hope to see you and all our German friends
arrayed against his methods and in condemnation of his
political courses.
You know I am no stickler for regular nominations. I have
not said and shall not say one word against that independence
in politics that condemns bad conduct or bad methods in
political action; but I do believe that if Blaine be elected, he
will give us a good Administration. He can afford to rise
above the shackles of party and he will do it. If he has been a
Prince Hal in days gone by, when responsibility comes, he
will be a Henry V. The Falstaffs that have followed him
rather that thrift might come from fawning, will not be recog-
1884] Carl Schurz 213
nized in shaping his policies nor be suffered to bring odium
upon his Administration.
I expect to be in New York before the 25th inst., and I hope
that you may be able to suspend all further movements on the
political chessboard, till I can see you. To-morrow I will
write frankly to Elaine, on several matters, and among them
his feelings toward you, and also the methods of administra
tion to be adhered to, should he be elected, and when I see
you, I hope to be able to satisfy you in reference to his policy.
I am so confident myself, that I am anxious to have my per
sonal friends feel as I do.
Please write me, and, if possible, say you will take no
further action till I see you.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
no W. 34TH ST., July 2, 1884.
Many thanks for your kind letter of June 29th. I must
confess that I am seriously alarmed at the prospective
issue of your Convention. There is good reason for be
lieving that Butler and John Kelly are working together,
not only for the defeat of Cleveland but for the overthrow
of every other candidate giving promise of good govern
ment. Kelly gave out some time ago that you were his
favorite. I hope you never believed it. If you do, the
bitterest disappointment is in store for you. I predict
that the Butler-Kelly combination will only use your
name to head off Cleveland and then drop you too as one
of those "of whom it is very doubtful whether they can
be elected." I read already of rumors about speeches
having been discovered, made by you at the beginning of
the war in the Delaware legislature, which are said to be
"worse than the Dover speech," the new discoveries to be
used against you in the Convention. If the Convention
has not courage enough not only to emancipate itself
214 The Writings of [1884
from the dictation and intrigues of Butler and Kelly, but
to defy them, it will be in very great danger of doing not
only a weak, but a disastrous thing.
I notice that Tammany has now put forward the
"workingmen" to mask its own operations against
Cleveland. The whole demonstration signifies only that
a few corrupt politicians want to have their own way,
The Independent vote will carry the State for Cleveland
triumphantly, as it will for you. Of this I am honestly
convinced, and I may say I am not ill advised as to the
condition of things here.
There is no safety but in a friendly understanding and
cooperation between your friends and Cleveland's. They
have the same general objects in view and ought to act
together, instead of being distracted by divided counsel,
thus leaving the field to the intrigues of the common
enemy. Two or three ballots, I should think, would
determine clearly enough whether you or Cleveland can
be nominated, and then there should be a concentration.
Ought not this [to] be promptly arranged?
I repeat, if the Democrats fritter away their chances
this time, when everything conspires to present them the
finest opportunities, there will be no resurrection for them.
While the final destruction of a party by its own imbecility
might well be endured, it is dreadful to think of the almost
irreparable detriment the Republic would meanwhile
receive through Elaine's election.
TO JOHN B. HENDERSON
NEW YORK, July 5, 1884.
Yesterday I received your kind letter of the 1st inst.
I shall, of course, always be glad to meet you as a friend
and to talk with you about whatever it may be, includ-
1884] Carl Schurz 215
ing the present campaign. You will, therefore, be very
welcome when you come here. But in justice to you as
well as to myself, I cannot have you under the impression
as if there were any prospect of a change of attitude on
my part with regard to Mr. Elaine's candidacy. Let me
assure you, it is not a pleasant thing to me to embark in a
movement of opposition to my party. I know too well
what that implies, and I should not do it without necessity.
I cannot look upon Mr. Blaine as a mere jolly Prince Hal
who has lived through his years of indiscretion and of
whom the Presidency will certainly make a new man.
Neither do I think that, even if something like such a
change were possible, it would much lessen the evil effect
which the mere fact of his election would inevitably
produce.
A campaign like this is extremely distasteful to me.
Some things yet unpublished have come to my knowledge
which strongly confirm my opinion of Mr. Blaine. But
the public record to which, in discussing his career and
qualifications, I am disposed to confine myself, is bad
enough — quite sufficiently so to determine my position.
I wish the whole thing were over and you and I could
stand in the same line again.
TO HENRY CABOT LODGE
NEW YORK, July 12, 1884.
My dear Mr. Lodge: I have long resisted my im
pulse to write to you, but I can resist no longer, although
what I am going to say may look like an intrusion. My
excuse must be that you are one of the young men for
whom I have a very warm feeling.
I learned some time ago that you had declared for Blaine,
and now I find in the papers an announcement of a rati
fication meeting at which you are expected to speak. I
216 The Writings of [1884
have no doubt you think, or at least you have persuaded
yourself to think, that you are doing that which is best not
only for yourself but for the country. Pardon me for
entreating you to reexamine carefully the reasons which
have brought you to that conclusion, before you irretriev
ably commit yourself. You can scarcely fail to find that
the question you have to deal with in determining your
position is not a mere secondary point of policy upon
which one might disagree with his party while at the same
time voting the party ticket. It is this time one of those
moral questions which touch the most vital spot in the
working of our institutions. The election of Mr. Elaine
to the Presidency will be a virtual indorsement of corrupt
practices by the American people. It will establish a
precedent teaching the growing generation and those
coming after it, that a man may freely use his official
power for private gain and still be considered by the Ameri
can people worthy of the highest honors of the Republic.
The crop of demoralization which will spring from such
a seed, is incalculable. It may poison the whole future
of the Republic.
To contribute to such a result or merely to the possi
bility of it is a thing which a man of your way of thinking
can hardly feel easy about. I cannot think that you do
and that you ever will. And such, I am sure, is the be
lief of those of your friends for whose confidence and esteem
you have hitherto cared most. If you really do not feel
quite certain that you are right you should consider the
risk you are running, — a risk which you have perhaps
not quite measured.
You will find all at once your position essentially
changed. Those who have been your friends, the circle
to which you naturally belong, will perhaps not loudly
censure you. But you will soon begin to feel that your
relations are no longer what they used to be. You will
1884] Carl Schurz 217
presently miss that open confidence to which you had
been accustomed. This will be the case especially if under
these circumstances you accept a regular nomination for
Congress. I beg of you to think this all out for yourself.
You are a young man. You have the great advantage
of affluent circumstances. You have the promise of an
honorable and useful career before you. That promise
will certainly not be damaged if you follow a noble
impulse at the risk of temporarily compromising your
party standing and of obscuring the prospect of immediate
preferment. A young public man rather strengthens him
self in the esteem of those whose esteem is most valuable,
even when they do not wholly agree with him, by an act
of obedience to his best impulses, which at the same time
is manifestly an act of unselfishness. A standing thus
achieved is the moral basis of a career such as you would
choose for yourself and as your most desirable friends will
be proud to aid you in accomplishing.
But that promise may be fatally damaged in another
way. The course you are in danger of following, as it
takes you out of the fellowship of those with whom so far
you have been bound together in sympathy and confidence,
will unite you more and more in fellowship with the
opposite element, the ordinary party politicians. The
more you try to satisfy them, the less will you satisfy
yourself. The result will be a disappointment all the
more bitter as you then will see reason to reproach your
self for not having done the right thing, which was also
the natural thing, at the decisive moment.
Believe an old and experienced friend, my dear Mr.
Lodge, who tells you that you cannot afford to take the
regular Republican nomination for Congress this autumn.
You cannot afford to do it as a matter of ordinary pru
dence, were you ever so firmly convinced of being right
with regard to the Presidential ticket. A young man may
218 The Writings of [1884
commit an impulsive indiscretion with impunity. But if
he brings upon himself the suspicion, however unjust it
may be, of stifling on an important occasion his best im
pulses for the purpose of getting quickly into place, the
taint will stick to him as long as the companions of his
young days live. He may never get rid of it. To avert
it is worth a sacrifice.
I know I have sometimes spoken to you approvingly
of your efforts to identify yourself with the " regular
organization" and thus to make your way up. I should
not object to unimportant concessions of points of policy
to that end. But there is a moral limit to those con
cessions, and in this case I am strongly convinced that this
limit is reached.
Will you pardon my frankness in saying all this to you?
I should not have ventured to do it, in fact I should not
have taken the trouble of doing it, were not my feelings
for you warm and sincere. This being so, I should have
reproached myself with an unperformed duty had I not
made this attempt to warn you of what I conceive to be
a great danger to your future career. It is certainly not
too late to turn back. If you do it, do it promptly,
straightforwardly and boldly.
I do not want to think of our speaking on different
sides when I go to Massachusetts in this campaign.
Believe me, sincerely your friend,
C. SCHURZ.
FROM HENRY CABOT LODGE
EAST POINT, NAHANT, July 14, 1884.
Dear Mr. Schurz : I received your kind letter this evening.
It touched and gratified me very deeply as a mark of interest
which you would not have shown unless you had felt a most
sincere friendship for me. I am very much indebted to you for
1884] Carl Schurz 219
it and I appreciate it very highly. It is too late for me to alter
my course even if I wished to. By the time you receive this I
shall have spoken at the meeting to be held to-morrow evening.
I did not conclude on this course without a great deal of very
painful reflection. I regard my action as the only honorable
one to take. If I had announced to the Massachusetts
Convention that if Mr. Blaine were nominated I should bolt
him they never would have sent me to Chicago. I took the
position with my eyes open. The understanding was clear
and binding even if tacit. I made up my mind that if Blaine
were nominated I should have to abide by the result and not
bolt. Mr. Curtis on the floor of the Convention declared
that we, the Edmunds men, came there in good faith. I
assented to that statement and to it I can give but one inter
pretation. Again no protest was made on the floor of the
Convention and the nomination was made unanimous without
objection. Under these circumstances for me to bolt or do
anything like it especially as I went to Chicago as the head
of the Republican organization in this State, seems to me
simply dishonorable. I may be wrong but I am firmly con
vinced on this point. I shall speak at the meeting to-morrow,
announce my formal adhesion to the ticket and make a short
party speech. Next week I shall resign the chairmanship of
the committee. I am not likely to please anybody in this
business. The Blaine Republicans will think me lukewarm
and are as likely as not to defeat my nomination for Congress.
If that nomination comes to me (and I shall not lift a finger to
get it), as I feel now I shall accept it. I do not look on that
matter as you do. I should announce my own principles and
run on my own feet. I should be entirely free and my own
master. Colonel Lyman ran on the Butler ticket, was elected
by Butler votes and by a combination with the Butler party.
Every Independent in the State applauded the result. Why
should it be so suddenly wicked in me to run on the Blaine
ticket after freely declaring my own independent views?
If every man who votes the Republican ticket is to be
branded, the Independent movement will die of narrowness
and prejudice.
22O The Writings of [1884
Moreover, I have fought the Democracy in this State during
the past year and I have a very bad opinion of it. Despite
the nomination of Blaine I firmly believe that to the masses
of the Republican party we must look for progress and reform
in public affairs.
Besides considering this subject deeply myself I have
consulted some men in whom I have confidence and they
advise me to adopt my present course. This is the advice of
John and Charles Adams and of Roosevelt. Roosevelt not
only advises it but means to return and vote for Blaine
himself and has offered to speak in my district. I speak of
running for Congress only as it looks to me now. Matters may
of course change. One thing in your letter and only one sur
prised and pained me. That was your intimation that my
friends would leave me and my position be affected. If
social ostracism is to be attempted in this business, I confess
a feeling of revolt would master me completely. My people
have lived here for generations. I have been born and brought
up here. I never have done a mean, dishonorable or cowardly
thing in my life, so far as I know. I have never injured a man
or wronged a woman. If I am to be banned because I vote
according to what I believe conscientiously to be the dictates
of honor, then have the old anti-slavery days indeed come again
and I will fight against such treatment with all my strength.
But I have no fear of this. Except for a few extremists and a
few envious men, the community which has known me all my
days will do me justice in the end. Moreover, in my district
here there are scores of men who have stood by me and followed
me and worked for me and they beg me now to stand by them.
There is an obligation here which I cannot overlook although
it would not be of itself decisive, perhaps.
I am fully aware that I shall at this time be accused of the
worst motives but I must make the best of it. If I cannot
answer and remove it by my life and acts then I am much
mistaken. On mere grounds of expediency it seems to me that
no party was ever founded on opposition to a single man or ever
will be. Whatever the result of the election the parties will
remain. By staying in the party I can be of some use. By
1884] Carl Schurz 221
going out I destroy all the influence and power for good I may
possess. I have written you at great length, my dear Mr.
Schurz, and with entire frankness and of course in the most
absolute confidence. I wished you to know just why I act
as I do. I want you to realize that however mistaken I may
be I act from a sense of duty and from a conviction that I
have a debt of honor which I must pay no matter how disagree
able and distasteful it is. Believe me that I am sincerely
grateful for your letter and your kind interest. I shall never
forget either and am, most truly yours,
H. C. LODGE.
TO HENRY CABOT LODGE
NEW YORK, July 16, 1884.
I received your kind letter of the I4th this morning,
and am sincerely glad you have accepted what I said to
you, in the right spirit. Of course I regret that it has
had no effect, especially as the reasons you give for the
course you have chosen do not seem to me conclusive.
Our duty to the country, which we discharge at the ballot-
box, is in all respects paramount to any duty we may owe
to the party. In my opinion there is nothing that could
overrate the former.
I can understand that you do not like the Democratic
party. But it seems to me that the effect upon our polit
ical morals certain to be produced by the election of a
man with a notoriously corrupt record, to the Presidency of
the United States, will be infinitely more detrimental to
the public welfare than anything a Democratic Adminis
tration might bring with it. The latter would in the worst
case be temporary, the former lasting. In this respect
my convictions are so strong that I should have worked
and voted against Blaine under any circumstances, asking
only that the opposing candidate be an honest man.
However, you have made your choice, and further
222 The Writings of [1884
argument is superfluous. I only want to assure you that
nothing in my letter was in the least degree intended to
hint at "social ostracism." What I referred to was
political fellowship and cooperation.
Believe me, sincerely yours.
FROM HENRY WARD BEECHER
BROOKLYN, N. Y., July 29, 1884.
I have received such statements respecting Cleveland from
several eminent clergymen of Buffalo, that I am paralyzed.
Pray, put off your speech, of which Metcalf tells me, until we
are sure of our ground. It would be very disastrous to you,
and to the cause, if AFTER your speech (which will of course be
very able) it should come out, as Rev. Dr. Ball of Buffalo assures
me, that Cleveland's debaucheries "continue to this hour. "
I am informed by Rev. Dr. Mitchell, formerly of Brooklyn
(now of ist Presbyterian Church, Buffalo — the most influential
Church there) that the whole body of ministers in B. are of
one mind, and counseled the publication in the Telegraph
newspaper.
The Independents, of all men, being the advocates of moral
reformation in politics cannot uphold a grossly dissipated
man — and they ought not to wait to be driven from their
position, but retreat in good order, before being charged,
from an untenable ground. It may be possible to compel C.
to refuse the nomination. Bayard, Thurman, Carlisle, —
any clean man will be better than a spavined man for a race.
Cleveland, if debauched, and held to by the Independents,
will elect Blaine, by such a majority as will tread the Independ
ent movement hopelessly under foot.
TO HENRY WARD BEECHER
NEW YORK, July 30, 1884.
Since I wrote you yesterday I have once more gone over
the whole ground, reexamining carefully the stories told
1884] Carl Schurz 223
by the Buffalo Telegraph as well as the statements Mr.
Richmond made to me; and the more I study the case, the
more do I become convinced that Governor Cleveland is
a much calumniated man. The stories as told bear all
the signs of artful inventions either by a political trickster
or by a journalistic sensation monger who persuaded him
self that the fourteen-year-old offense, which forms the
substratum of them, would deter Governor Cleveland and
his friends from ever attempting to challenge the fabric
of falsehood built upon it. I think you will find it so
upon further investigation. Meanwhile it looks to me as
if the Buffalo ministers were permitting themselves to be
used for ends which they would not approve, and in a
manner which they would ultimately be sorry for. I
have written Mr. Richmond to acquaint them with the
facts so that they may know the whole truth. But as
Mr. Richmond has probably stopped at Albany on his
way to Buffalo, my letter may not reach him for a day or
two.
As to my meeting and speech, I have concluded to let
the preparations go on. The affair is to come off on
Tuesday of next week and has already been advertised.
Before that day I shall have further advices from Buffalo.
If they show that my view of the case is wrong, it will be
time enough to draw back. But I do not think it would be
justifiable to order off a meeting already advertised and
to create confusion and doubt by such a demonstration
of distrust, as things now stand. I suppose you would
advise the rejection of Cleveland, that is, virtually, the
giving up of the campaign as to practical results, if nothing
could be charged against Cleveland except what is ad
mitted — this having been followed by an eminently useful
life. At least Mr. Metcalf told me that you had said you
would not.
I assure you, I do not take this matter lightly and
224 The Writings of [1884
should be glad to have your view of the case as it presents
[itself] to you on fuller information. J
WHY JAMES G. ELAINE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT2
FELLOW-CITIZENS : — In obedience to the invitation with
which I have been honored, I stand here in behalf of
Republicans opposing the Presidential candidates of the
Republican party. You may well believe me when I
say that it is no pleasure to me to enter upon a campaign
like this. But a candid statement of our reasons for the
step we have taken is due to those whose companionship
in the pending contest we have left. It is, therefore, to
Republicans that I address myself. I shall, of course,
not waste any words upon politicians who follow the
name of the party, right or wrong; but to the men of
reason and conscience will I appeal, who loved their party
for the good ends it was serving, and who were faithful
to it in the same measure as it was faithful to the honor
and the true interests of the Republic. Let them hear
me, and then decide whether the same fidelity will not
irresistibly lead them where we stand now.
At the threshold I have to meet a misapprehension of
our motives. It has been said, and, I suppose, believed
by some, that we were dissatisfied with the Republican
party because its present candidates were protectionists.
This is easily answered. Is Senator Edmunds, of Ver
mont, a free-trader? On the contrary, he is well known
to be as strong a protectionist as any member of the
Senate. And who among the candidates before the Re
publican National Convention was the favorite of the
same " Independent Republicans " now opposing the
1 In a short time Beecher came to agree with Schurz and likewise made
campaign speeches in behalf of Cleveland.
a Speech at Brooklyn, Aug. 5, 1884.
1884] Carl Schurz 225
Republican nominations? The same Senator Edmunds.
Why was he their favorite? Because he was thoroughly
trusted as an honest man, who could be depended upon to
be faithful to those moral principles and political methods
the observance of which would make and keep the Govern
ment honest. There was the decisive point. We should
have supported other Republican candidates even of less
prominence and of less ability than Mr. Edmunds pos
sesses, no matter whether they were as strong protection
ists as he, provided they satisfied that one fundamental
requirement of unimpeachable, positive and active integ
rity. This is a fact universally known which no candid
man will question. What, then, has the tariff ques
tion to do with the motives of our opposition? Nothing
at all. And if any of those to whom these presents
may come still assert that the tariff is the moving cause
of our action, they convict themselves of being afraid of
the real reasons which govern us, and of seeking artfully
to deceive the people about them. So far, it may have
been a mistake ; now it will be a lie.
Undoubtedly the tariff is an interesting and important
subject; so is the currency; so is the bank question; so is
the Mormon question; so are many others. At other
times they might absorb our attention. But this time
the Republican National Convention has, with brutal
directness, so that we must face it whether we will or not,
forced upon the country another issue, which is infinitely
more important, because it touches the vitality of our
institutions. It is the question of honesty in government.
I say the Republican Convention has forced it upon the
country, not by platform declarations, but by nominating
for the Presidency a man with a blemished public record.
Understand me fully. The question is not merely
whether Mr. Blaine, if elected notwithstanding his past
career, would or would not give the country a compara-
VOL. IV.— IS
226 The Writings of 1*884
tively honest Administration. The question is much
larger than that, v It is whether the public record of the
Republican candidate is not such as to make his election
by the American people equivalent to a declaration on
their part that honesty will no longer be one of the re
quirements of the Government of the Republic. It is
whether such a declaration will not have the inevitable
effect of sinking the Government for generations to come,
perhaps forever, into a depth of demoralization and cor
ruption such as we have never dreamed of before. If
this is really the issue of the pending campaign, then you
will admit it to be the most momentous that has been
upon us since the civil war; nay, as momentous as any
involved in the civil war itself.
Above all, let us be sure of the facts. Are the public
character and record of the Republican candidate really
such that his election would produce results of greater
consequence to the future of the Republic than the de
cision one way or the other of any political question now
pending? Some of Mr. Elaine's friends assert that he is
a much abused and calumniated man ; that certain charges
have been trumped up against him and exploded; that
unscrupulous enemies are persecuting him with accusations
of a vague and indefinite nature, using against him the in
sidious weapons of hint, insinuation and innuendo. If
this be so, it is wrong. Mr. Elaine has a clear right to
demand the facts. The citizens who are asked to vote
against him on the ground of his character and record
have a right to demand the facts. And if indeed others
have been vague in their statements on a subject so impor
tant to the people at this time, nobody shall have any
reason to complain of a want of straightforwardness on
my part. Nothing could be more distasteful to me than
to discuss the personal conduct of a public man. But it
has been forced upon us as a public duty, which, however
1884] Carl Schurz 227
disagreeable, must be performed. I shall certainly not
abuse Mr. Blaine. I shall not even make a charge against
him which he has not made against himself. You shall
have his own words, taken from the official record of Con
gress, by which to judge him. I shall leave aside all other
accusations brought by others, however well authenticated
or plausible, and confine myself to one representative and
simple case. It is a somewhat tedious story.
In May and June, 1876, an investigation was made by
a committee of the National House of Representatives
into the affairs of certain land-grant railroads. This in
vestigation brought out certain letters which Mr. Blaine,
while Speaker of the House of Representatives, had
written to Mr. W. Fisher, of Boston, a gentleman con
nected in a business way with one of those roads. The
first one of the letters I want to mention reads thus:
AUGUSTA, June 29, 1869.
My dear Mr. Fisher: I thank you for the article from
Mr. Lewis. It is good in itself and will do good. He
writes like a man of large intelligence and comprehension.
Your offer to admit me to a participation in the new railroad
enterprise is in every respect as generous as I could expect
or desire. I thank you very sincerely for it, and in this con
nection I wish to make a suggestion of a somewhat selfish
character. It is this: You spoke of Mr. Caldwell's offer to
dispose of a share of his interest to me. If he really desires
to do so I wish he would make the proposition definite, so
that I could know just what to depend on. Perhaps if he
waits to the full development of the enterprise he may grow
reluctant to part with the share, and I do not by this mean
any distrust of him. I do not feel that I shall prove a dead
head in the enterprise if I once embark in it. I see various
channels in which I know I can be useful.
Very hastily and sincerely your friend,
JAMES G. BLAINE.
Mr. FISHER, India Street, Boston.
228 The Writings of [1884
This is what Puck calls the ''letter of acceptance/*
The second, dated three days later, reads as follows:
AUGUSTA, ME., July 2, 1869.
My dear Mr. Fisher: You ask me if I am satisfied with
the offer you made me of a share in your new railroad enter
prise? Of course, I am more than satisfied with the terms
of the offer; I think it a most liberal proposition. If I hesitate
at all it is from considerations in no way connected with the
character of the offer. Your liberal mode of dealing with me
in all our business transactions of the past eight years has not
passed without my full appreciation. What I wrote you on
the 29th was intended to bring Caldwell to a definite proposi
tion. That was all. I go to Boston by the same train that
carries this letter, and will call at your office to-morrow at
12 M. If you don't happen to be in, no matter; don't put
yourself to any trouble about it.
Yours,
J. G. B.
Mr. FISHER, Jr.
Here let us pause a moment. Who were Mr. Fisher and
Mr. Caldwell? Business men occasionally engaged in rail
road affairs, in this case interested in the building of the Lit
tle Rock and Fort Smith Railroad in Arkansas, and in the
financial operations connected therewith. It should be re
membered that this Little Rock Railroad had received from
the National Government a valuable grant of land, and
that its interests could occasionally be promoted or injured,
as the case might be, by the legislative action of Congress.
And who was Mr. Blaine? He was at the time Speaker
of the National House of Representatives. And what is
the Speaker of the House of Representatives? He is,
without question, by far the most powerful man in the
Government, next to the President of the United States.
He appoints the committees of the House, in which all
legislation is prepared — aye, in which, it might almost be
said, the principal business of the House is done. He
1884] Carl Schurz 229
can, if he pleases, compose those committees in a way
favorable or unfavorable to certain lines of policy, or
measures, or interests. He can make the Committee
on Banking and Currency a protector or an enemy to the
national banks. He can give the Committee on Pacific
Railroads or on Public Lands a bias friendly or hostile to
the land-grant roads. And so on. He can reward and
exalt, or punish and humiliate members whom he likes
or dislikes, or whom he wants to strengthen or to weaken,
by giving them desirable or undesirable places on the
committees. Moreover, he presides over the deliberations
and administers the rules of the House. It is in a great
measure in his power to recognize or not to recognize
members who want to "catch his eye" in order to speak
or make motions. He decides points of order — to be
sure, subject to appeal — but his bare decision goes, of
course, for much. And during those days of hurry and
confusion which sometimes occur, especially towards the
close of the session, a great many things may be put
through the House by his rapid action, of which only he
and those especially interested and watchful keep the
run. In short, it is currently said that a bill to which
the Speaker is seriously opposed has but a slim chance,
and that a measure he desires to pass will frequently find
unexpected and powerful help.
Such is the power of the Speaker, almost too vast and
arbitrary in a government like ours, especially as to the
composition of the committees. But all the more impor
tant is it to the country that this vast power, so dangerous
if abused, should be wielded with the utmost scrupulous
ness and the highest sense of official honor; and all the
more important to the Speaker himself that his disinter
estedness, his impartiality — in one word, his official
honor — should stand clean and clear not only above
reproach, but above the reach of suspicion.
230 The Writings of [1884
Well, Mr. Elaine had for eight years been in various
business transactions with Mr. Fisher, in which he says
Mr. Fisher treated him very handsomely. Now, he was
thankful to Mr. Fisher for his "generous" offer to admit
him (the Speaker) "to a participation in the new railroad
enterprise" — that railroad being a land-grant road. The
"terms" offered by Mr. Fisher, whatever they may have
been, pleased Speaker Elaine greatly. But he wanted
more. He wished very much that Mr. Caldwell, the
business friend of Mr. Fisher, should "dispose of a share
of his interest" to him (the Speaker), and that without
much delay. And he desired Mr. Caldwell as well as
Mr. Fisher to understand that he (Speaker Elaine) would
not prove a deadhead in the enterprise if he once embarked
in it, and that he saw various channels in which he knew
he could make himself useful.
But Mr. Caldwell seems to have been a little hard of
hearing in this respect. He may have thought that Mr.
Blaine was neither a practical railroad man to help in build
ing a road, nor as useful a financier as a practical banker
or Wall Street man would have been in raising funds. He
seems to have feared that Mr. Blaine might turn out a
deadhead in the enterprise after all, and that his "useful
ness in various channels" would not amount to much.
And so for three months Mr. Blaine waited in vain for
that "definite proposition" from Mr. Caldwell which
he had so urgently asked for.
Mr. Blaine then evidently grew impatient at Mr. Cald
well' s obtuseness, and wrote two more letters calculated to
quicken his intelligence. The first was as follows :
AUGUSTA, ME., Oct. 4, 1869.
Personal.
My dear Sir: I spoke to you a short time ago about a
point of interest to your railroad company that occurred
at the last session of Congress.
1884] Carl Schurz 231
It was on the last night of the session, when the bill renew
ing the land grant to the State of Arkansas for the Little Rock
road was reached, and Julian, of Indiana, chairman of the
Public Lands Committee, and, by right, entitled to the floor,
attempted to put on the bill, as an amendment, the Fremont-
El Paso scheme — a scheme probably well known to Mr.
Caldwell. The House was thin, and the lobby in the Fremont
interest had the thing all set up, and Julian's amendment
was likely to prevail if brought to a vote. Roots and other
members from Arkansas, who were doing their best for their
own bill (to which there seemed to be no objection), were in
despair, for it was well known that the Senate was hostile
to the Fremont scheme, and if the Arkansas bill had gone back
to the Senate with Julian's amendment, the whole thing
would have gone on the table and slept the sleep of death.
In this dilemma Roots came to me to know what on earth
he could do under the rules, for he said it was vital to his con
stituents that the bill should pass. I told him that Julian's
amendment was entirely out of order, because not germane;
but he had not sufficient confidence in his knowledge of the
rules to make the point, but he said General Logan was opposed
to the Fremont scheme, and would probably make the point.
I sent my page to General Logan with the suggestion, and he at
once made the point. I could not do otherwise than sustain
it, and so the bill was freed from the mischievous amendment
moved by Julian, and at once passed without objection.
At that time I had never seen Mr. Caldwell, but you can
tell him that, without knowing it, I did him a great favor.
Sincerely yours,
J. G. BLAINE.
W. FISHER, Jr., Esq., No. 24 India street, Boston.
On the same day he wrote a second letter to Mr. Fisher
which reads thus:
AUGUSTA, Oct. 4, 1869.
My dear Mr. Fisher: Find inclosed contracts of parties
named in my letter of yesterday. The remaining contracts
232 The Writings of [1884
will be completed as rapidly as possible, as circumstances
will permit.
I inclose you part of the Congressional Globe of April 9,
containing the point to which I referred at some length in my
previous letter of to-day. You will find it of interest to read
it over and see what a narrow escape your bill made on that
last night of the session. Of course it was my plain duty to
make the ruling when the point was once raised. If the
Arkansas men had not, however, happened to come to me when
at their wits' end and in despair, the bill would undoubtedly
have been lost, or at least postponed for a year. I thought
the point would interest both you and Caldwell, though
occurring before either of you engaged in the enterprise.
I beg you to understand that I thoroughly appreciate the
courtesy with which you have treated me in this railroad
matter, but your conduct toward me in business matters has
always been marked by unbounded liberality in past years,
and, of course, I have naturally come to expect the same of
you now. You urge me to make as much as I fairly can out
of the arrangement into which we have entered. It is natural
that I should do my utmost to this end. I am bothered
by only one thing, and that is the indefinite arrangement
with Mr. Caldwell. I am anxious to acquire the interest he
has promised me, but I do not get a definite understanding
with him as I have with you. I shall be in Boston in a few
days, and shall then have an opportunity to talk matters
over fully with you. I am disposed to think that whatever
I do with Mr. Caldwell must really be done through you.
Kind regards to Mrs. Fisher. Sincerely,
J. G. BLAINE.
W. FISHER, Jr.
Now, Mr. Caldwell may have been very slow of appre
hension. But these two letters (for they were evidently
addressed to him through Mr. Fisher) were certainly
clear enough to remind him that Mr. Elaine was some
thing more than a mere railroad man or Wall Street
financier; that, in fact, he was Speaker of the House of
1884] Carl Schurz 233
Representatives. They told him very pointedly that
Mr. Elaine, as Speaker, had done him a great favor—
although he had done it "without knowing it," and in
a correct way — but a favor which was of great value to
the company. And it was certainly not the fault of Mr.
Elaine's letters if Mr. Caldwell did not understand that
a Speaker of the House, who could do such favors " with
out knowing it/' might do equal and still greater favors
while knowing it; and that, therefore, Mr. Elaine, as
Speaker, had more various channels in which to make
himself useful, and to prove a live-head in this land-grant
railroad enterprise, than a mere railroad builder or a mere
Wall Street financier. And writing two letters on the
same subject on one day, Mr. Elaine showed himself
dreadfully in earnest in pounding clear notions of the
Speaker's opportunities for usefulness into Mr. Caldwell's
head, in order to induce that gentleman to give at last to
Speaker Elaine that interest in the railroad enterprise
which the Speaker insisted upon having.
Mr. Elaine's friends dislike greatly to be brought face
to face with these letters. They cannot deny their genu
ineness and they cannot explain them away. Some of
them content themselves with the general remark that
after all they were such as the Speaker of the House
would have no reason to be ashamed of. And then they
at once change the subject and speak of the tariff. The
fact is that Mr. Elaine did see reason for being extremely
anxious that they should not become known. He cer
tainly did not consider them innocent. But they did
become known in a very peculiar way. Mr. James
Mulligan, who had been the bookkeeper of Mr. Fisher,
having been summoned to testify before the investigating
committee, brought those letters among others with him
to Washington. This he did with Mr. Fisher's consent.
As soon as Mr. Elaine heard of the letters he called upon
234 The Writings of [1884
Mr. Mulligan, and the meeting was a very curious one.
Mr. Mulligan, the next day, described it to the committee
under oath. He swore that Mr. Elaine had come to him
and implored him most piteously to give him those letters
—there were fifteen of them in all ; that Mr. Elaine almost
went on his knees, saying that if the committee should
get hold of these papers it would ruin him and sink him
forever; that Mr. Elaine had talked even of suicide and
made an appeal in behalf of his wife and his six children,
and that then he opened to him (Mulligan) the prospect
of a consulship abroad; that Mr. Elaine, finally, wanted
at least to be permitted to look at the letters, which
Alulligan did permit him to do on condition that he would
return them; that Mr. Elaine did return them, and then
wanted to look at them again, and then refused to give
them back, and against Mr. Mulligan's protest kept them
in his possession.
The next day Mr. Elaine testified that what Mr.
Mulligan had said about his (Mr. Elaine's) being on his
knees and talking of ruin and suicide was "mere fancy."
As to the consulship, he admitted he had alluded to
something like that in a jocular way. He disclaimed
meaning to say that Mr. Mulligan falsified; "not at all."
Mr. Mulligan might have put a wrong construction on
what he said. But as to the letters, Mr. Elaine admitted
that he took them from Mulligan and kept them against
Mr. Mulligan's remonstrance. Mr. Elaine insisted that
the letters, being his "private correspondence," were his
property, in whatever way obtained, and he also refused
to give them up to the committee.
This is the story as it appears in the sworn testimony;
it shows conclusively that, whatever his friends may now
say, Mr. Elaine himself did not consider those letters at
all harmless. You will readily admit, it is a sorry and
humiliating thing to see Mr. Elaine, the late Speaker of
1884] Carl Schurz 235
the National House of Representatives, involved in a
pointed issue of veracity on sworn testimony between
him and Mr. Mulligan — Mr. Elaine's own friend, Mr.
Fisher, testifying that he had known Mulligan intimately
for many years, and that his character was the best, as
good as, or perhaps better than, that of any other man
he ever knew; and another one of Mr. Elaine's friends,
Mr. Alkins, swearing that he had never heard anything
against Mr. Mulligan's reputation, and that he had never
doubted anything Mr. Mulligan said — all of which you
can read at length in Miscellaneous Document No. 176
of the House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress,
First Session. A sorry story, I repeat; but the sorriest
thing of all was that Mr. Elaine fatally discredited him
self by daring and obvious misstatements of his own
about other points connected with this affair, of which I
shall speak later. At any rate, it is not denied by any
body that Mr. Elaine got possession of those letters and
kept them without authority, in violation of his promise
to return them, and that he made a desperate struggle to
conceal them. This, I should think, is sufficient to show
that Mr. Elaine himself in conscience felt these letters
to be extremely grave things to him, and the smiles of
his friends are rather ghastly when they now try to make
light of them.
How, then, did the letters come out? Mulligan's
testimony, being telegraphed all over the country, created
a tremendous sensation. There was a universal outcry.
It became clear to Mr. Elaine that the further conceal
ment of these letters was impossible. It was sure death.
There was still a desperate chance in apparent audacity.
The highly exciting scene is still remembered as he him
self read them to the House of Representatives. But
he who coolly reads the printed proceedings of that day
will find some very curious and characteristic things. Mr.
236 The Writings of [1884
Elaine did not permit the letters which he read to pass
into the hands of the officers of the House so that their
contents might have been verified. He promptly put
them into his own pocket again and carried them away.
And, secondly, in reading them to the House he dexter
ously mixed letters of different periods and about different
subjects together, so that no listener could on the spot
make head or tail to them.
Thus Mr. Elaine could prevent the House from verify
ing the letters and from at once understanding their full
import. But he could not prevent the letters as actually
read from being subsequently arranged according to dates
and subjects and compared with the testimony. Then
their connection became clear, and with it their meaning.
What is that meaning? What does it signify when a
Speaker of the House of Representatives writes to a
business man that he (the Speaker) wants a profitable
interest in an enterprise the value of which has been, and
may again be, affected by acts of the same legislative
body over which that Speaker presides, and in which he
exercises great power; when that Speaker says he feels
that he shall not prove a deadhead in the enterprise if
he once embarks in it, and that he sees various channels
in which he knows he can be useful, and when finally,
the desired profitable interest not being forthcoming, he
points to an exercise of his power as Speaker by which,
even "without knowing it," he did a great favor to the
party from whom he asks that profitable interest, thus
pointing directly at the field upon which he can make
himself most useful? What does this mean? On its
very face it means one of the highest and most powerful
officers in the Government marketing his official power
for private gain. It means official power offering itself
for prostitution to make money.
I say this is its meaning on the very face of it. Still,
1884] Carl Schurz 237
let us carefully examine whether that face may not possi
bly deceive us. For explanation we naturally turn to
Mr. Elaine himself, and to his nearest friends. What
have they brought forth? Let us see.
First, Mr. Elaine, in a solemn statement in the House
of Representatives, said that the "company derived its
life, franchise and value wholly from the State, " and
that "the Little Rock road derived all that it had from
the State of Arkansas and not from Congress.'* The
obvious object of this statement was to convey the im
pression that the House, over which Mr. Elaine presided
as Speaker, had no power over that land-grant road or
its interests and value, and that, therefore, his owning
or his asking for an interest in that enterprise, while he
was Speaker, was an absolutely harmless thing. I regret
to say that this explanation, coming from Mr. Elaine,
was almost as bad as the original offense, for in making
it he deliberately said what he knew to be not true. And
this I affirm, not upon the authority of one of Mr. Elaine's
enemies and detractors, but upon the authority of Mr.
Elaine himself. Remember Mr. Elaine's letter of Octo
ber 4, 1869, to Mr. Fisher. "It was on the last night of
the session," he wrote, "when the bill renewing the land
grant to the State of Arkansas for the Little Rock road
was reached." This was the bill which he informs Mr.
Fisher and Mr. Caldwell would have failed to pass but
for his (Speaker Elaine's) opportune intervention. And
Speaker Elaine wants it understood that by intervening
he did Mr. Caldwell "a great favor." Who was Mr.
Caldwell? Was he the State of Arkansas? No; he was
the builder of the Little Rock road. And it was he, the
Little Rock man, and not the State of Arkansas, to whom
Mr. Elaine claims to have done this favor. Mr. Elaine
knew, as every well-informed man knows, that land
grants for railroads, with some exceptions, were nominally
238 The Writings of [1884
made to States, but really with a specific road in view,
and that all legislation concerning those land-grant roads
made to States for railroad purposes always directly
affected the interests of the roads concerned. That he
knew this is clear from the language in his own letters.
It is therefore, I repeat, not one of Mr. Elaine's enemies,
but Mr. Elaine himself, who has proved out of his own
mouth that when he made this explanation in the House
of Representatives he knew it to be untrue.
The second point alleged by Mr. Elaine in his own
defense is that he did not get any favor from those rail
road men that was not open to anybody else; that is to
say, properly speaking, no real favor at all. He declared
solemnly before the House of Representatives that he
bought his Little Rock bonds and stocks "at precisely
the same rates as others paid," or, in the language of
Mr. Elaine's warmest friend and spokesman, "as they
were sold on the Boston market to all applicants. " Here
again Mr. Elaine has to face his own tell-tale letters.
What did that gush of gratitude mean when he wrote to
Mr. Fisher: "Your offer to admit me to a participation
in the new railroad enterprise is in every respect as gener
ous as I could expect or desire"; "of course I am more
than satisfied with the terms of the offer; I think it a most
liberal proposition"? Did it mean: "Oh, Mr. Fisher,
how generous you are in letting me have some bonds and
stocks 'at precisely the same rates as others pay'; it is
such a liberal proposition"? What did it mean when
he wrote further: "You spoke of Mr. Cald well's offer
to dispose of a share of his interest to me ; I wish he would
make the proposition definite, so that I could know just
what to depend on"? And again: "I am bothered by
only one thing, and that is definite and expressed arrange
ments with Mr. Cald well. I am anxious to acquire the
interest he has promised me." Did this mean that Mr.
1884] Carl Schurz 239
Caldwell's interest, of which the Speaker of the House
was so anxious to acquire a part, consisted only of the
privilege of buying Little Rock securities at " precisely
the same rates which others paid"? Did it mean that
Mr. Caldwell should graciously concede to him some
right which "all applicants in the Boston market" pos
sessed? What an audacious farce such an assertion
would be! If there is anything evident from Mr. Blame's
own letters it is that the Speaker of the House wanted to
be — and, according to his gush of gratitude to Mr. Fisher,
was — if not the favored one in that railroad enterprise,
then one of the favored few, on the "bottom floor," in
the "inside ring," who skim the cream before the public
get at the milkpan. And when in the investigation he
hinted at his being situated in the enterprise no better
than the public generally, he was confronted by Mr.
Mulligan with a memorandum book in Mr. Blame's own
handwriting, showing that Mr. Blaine had received as a
gratuity or commission about $130,000 in bonds and
$15,150 in money. Thereupon there was dead silence
on the part of Mr. Blaine. He had nothing more to say
than that he did not want his private affairs inquired
into. It is painfully evident that here again Mr. Blaine
stands convicted, not by his enemies and defamers, but
by his own pen, of having made solemn explanations of
his conduct before the House of Representatives which
were obviously untrue.
These are the things referred to when I said that Mr.
Blaine, in the issue of veracity between him and Mr.
Mulligan concerning that famous interview, had put him
self at a decided disadvantage by untruthful statements
about other parts of this business.
The third point urged in extenuation is that there was
no subsequent legislation concerning that railroad, except,
as Mr. Blaine said, an act "merely to rectify a previous
240 The Writings of [1884
mistake in legislation." But, whether to correct a mis
take or not, it was a very important act. It was to repeal
a proviso that the granted lands "should be sold to actual
settlers only, in quantities not greater than one quarter
of a section to each purchaser, at a price not exceeding
$2.50 per acre. " The repeal of that proviso was certainly
calculated to enhance the value of the land grant very
materially, and also that of the land-grant bonds, of
which Mr. Blaine had become a holder. Many members
of the House voted against the repeal, but it was carried.
The fourth point urged in favor of Mr. Blaine is that
after all he did not make any money by the operation.
It appears that the Little Rock enterprise proved some
what wild-cattish; that Speaker Blaine had disposed of
a number of bonds among his neighbors and friends at
high rates; that some of these, when the enterprise failed,
grew ugly ; that he found it best to take back the securities
and refund the money ; and so he claims that on the whole
he lost instead of gaining. If this is so, it shows that
this was not one of the operations through which Mr.
Blaine made his fortune. But would his failure to make
the money he desired and expected to make change the
character of the transaction? You might as well say:
This man is a truthful man. To be sure he lied, but
nobody would believe him. Or, this man is an honest
man; to be sure, he tried to pass counterfeit money, but
nobody would take it. Would the conduct of the Speaker
of the House on account of this failure be official power
not offering itself for prostitution? No, it would only
be official power offering itself for prostitution without,
in this instance, realizing its price.
Is there, then, nothing in the official record to put
those fatal letters in a better light ? Search and sift that
record as carefully as you may, and you will search and
sift it in vain. You will find other curious things. You
1884] Carl Schurz 241
will find this Speaker of the House "controlling" a large
interest in another land-grant road liable to be affected
by Congressional legislation, the Northern Pacific — "a
splendid thing," which he himself "can't touch," but
which he can offer to his friend Fisher, cautioning that
friend to be careful to keep the Speaker's name quiet.
You find a large and mysterious sum of money passing
through his hands, which he "had not in his possession
forty-eight hours, " but paid over to parties whom he
tried to protect from loss — a mysterious sum of money
much inquired about, of which Mr. Elaine proved himself
anxious to show where it had not come from, but avoided
showing where it had come from. We find him medi
ating as a friend between different interests and organiza
tions connected with railroads, and we begin to ask
ourselves with wonder whether there was a pie in which
the Speaker of the House did not have his finger.
We find something more. We find Mr. Blaine again
and again protesting against any line of inquiry which
might "expose his private business." What? Here
was the late Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the second officer in the Government, whose official integ
rity was questioned, before an investigating committee
of the same House over which he had presided; and he
did not cry out: "Here are my books, here my bank
accounts, here my letters, here my keys, here my friends,
here my enemies — take them all! Search, sift, question,
leave no stone unturned, no dark corner unexplored;
hold up every circumstance in the least suspicious to the
sunlight. I have been Speaker of the House of Represen
tatives. When my official integrity is seriously questioned
I must stand before the people, not only as one who
cannot be legally proved guilty, but as one whom sus
picion must not touch!" No, he did not say anything
of the kind. He did not remember Alexander Hamilton's
VOL. IV. — id
242 The Writings of [1884
example. What example was that? When some mys
terious circumstance had become known which threw a
shadow of suspicion upon his official integrity, what did
Hamilton do? Crouch behind the limitations of legal
evidence? Protest against exposing his private affairs?
Not he. With a courage that must have wrung his own
proud heart and pierced with agony that of his wife, he
tore the veil from the mystery with his own hand, and,
at the expense of confessing himself guilty of a trans
gression of a widely different and peculiarly "private"
kind, he proved the stainlessness of his official character.
Rather would he have those of his failings exposed which
men are most anxious to conceal, rather the happiness
of his home endangered, rather his reputation as a hus
band and a father questioned than leave the faintest
shadow of suspicion upon his official honor. But what
find we here? An official honor of a different kind. We
find Mr. Elaine protesting again and again: "I do not
think that my private business ought to be exposed."
"I do not want all my private matters gone into that
way." What private matters? The pecuniary rela
tions between the Speaker of the House of Representa
tives and operators in land-grant railroads. Fiercely he
struggled to keep the Mulligan letters concealed. On
what ground? Because, as he said, they were his "private
correspondence, " which, he pretended, nobody had any
right to see. And what did we see, when at last that
was found out which Mr. Blaine called his "private"
correspondence? And what would we see if that were
exposed which Mr. Blaine called his "private" business?
Again, it is not one of his enemies and detractors that
asks this question. It is Mr. Blame's own language
before the investigating committee that forces it upon us.
Analyze this case to classify it. Here we find not a
mere solitary slip of the conscience, not a mere occasional
1884] Carl Schurz 243
yielding to the seduction of opportunity to eke out a
scanty existence. Here we find the Speaker of the House
of Representatives in a businesslike way participating,
and urgently asking for a greater share, in a large enter
prise, the pecuniary success of which is in a great measure
dependent on the action of the same House over which
he presides, and in which he wields great power — for the
purpose of getting rich. We find him pointing out the
exercise of his official power as a channel in which he
already has made himself useful, and, consequently, can
make himself more useful, in order to obtain more of a
valuable interest in such an enterprise, thus literally
trading on his official trust and opportunities. To
cover up these things we find him resorting to all sorts
of barefaced untruths, deceptions and concealments on
the most solemn occasions. The concealments resorted
to and the side perspectives opened by the official investi
gation strongly suggest the inference that the case dis
closed is only one of several. We find that he did get
rich while in office, without any other regular business.
His most devoted friend, by implication, admits his
fortune to be nearly half a million, while the estimates
of others go far beyond that. But the lowest estimate,
about half a million, is wealth to all of our countrymen,
except a few. This is the character of the case.
And this is the man we are asked to elect President of
the United States and to crown with the highest honors
of the Republic. In the face of these facts? Perhaps
you still doubt them, and I suggest to you another test.
Tell one of Mr. Elaine's spokesmen what I have said and
ask him whether it is not true. The answer I predict
will be, that the objectors to Mr. Elaine are all free
traders; that I, in particular, am a very objectionable
person, who has done all sorts of wicked things and
should not be believed. I advise you, then, to reply
244 The Writings of [1884
that you readily concede all my wickedness, but that I
am not a candidate for the Presidency asking to be voted
for, while Mr. Elaine is, and that therefore you would
like to hear about Mr. Elaine. The answer is likely to
be that I am a much worse man than you ever thought I
was; that the tariff is in danger; that unless the Republican
party triumph the Democrats will come in, and that
therefore Mr. Elaine must be elected. When you hear
this answer you will then be sure enough of your facts.
But will you still think of making him President?
I know there are among those intending to do this
thing still many estimable citizens. I entreat them
soberly to consider what it is they mean to do. I grant
a man may speculate in railroad securities, if he does it
honestly, without forfeiting his good character. He may
also dispose of Little Rock bonds and other securities
among his neighbors and friends, and thereby earn a
commission. A good many men make it a business to do
such things, and it is a legitimate business, as things go.
But when a Speaker of the House of Representatives
has taken favors of a pecuniary value from railroad
operators, whose interests are liable to be affected by
Congressional legislation; and when that Speaker of the
House, asking for more favors, has urged that request on
the ground that he will not be a deadhead in the enter
prise, and that he knows he can make himself useful in
various channels; and when he has thereupon directly
pointed out his official power as a channel of usefulness;
and when, attempting to explain his doings, he has on
solemn occasions unblushingly said things glaringly un
true ; and when in an investigation into his official integrity
he has, instead of voluntarily, freely and widely opening
all the avenues of knowledge to prove his official purity,
constantly and anxiously protested against any inquiry
into his private business — when a Speaker of the House
1884] Carl Schurz 245
of Representatives has done this, and then the American
people, in full view of these facts, deliberately elect that
man their President — I ask you soberly and candidly,
and I hope you will ponder it well, do you not think that
the American people in doing so will put a disgrace upon
themselves and upon the Republic? And more. We
may be ever so lenient as to the private morals of public
men. We may overlook ever so readily delinquencies
in private conduct. But when a public man has con
spicuously betrayed and prostituted high official trust
for pecuniary gain, and is then elevated by the people,
knowing this, to higher official trust and honor, do you
not think that such a precedent and example will have a
fearfully demoralizing and corrupting effect upon the
public mind and come home to us in incalculable dishonor
and disaster? If you have not thought of this, is it not
time you should?
Look around you. Ours is certainly a magnificent
country. It is inhabited by a powerful and energetic
people, living under free institutions devised with un
common wisdom. We have accomplished much. Wars
and rebellions, small and great, we have successfully
gone through. In spite of all sorts of errors and blunders
we may have committed we have achieved wonderful
successes. We have grown rich and great and civilized,
and we find ourselves surrounded with all the elements
of further and still greater success and progress. A
grand prospect, apparently without bounds. And yet
there is something which disquiets us. It is the germ of
a moral disease which threatens the vitality of this great
Commonwealth. You observe with alarm the morbid
eagerness spreading among our young people to get rich
without productive work; how this eagerness becomes
more and more unscrupulous in the means it employs;
how defalcations and embezzlements in places of public
246 The Writings of [1884
as well as private trust increase in number and magnitude,
in ebbs and tides, to be sure, but the advancing tides
growing all the time more formidable; how men of high
position among their fellow-citizens, standing at the head
of great financial institutions, now and then despoil those
who trusted their money to them by acts little short of
downright robbery. You watch the great corporations
which the industrial developments of our times have
brought forth; how powerful they are; how the financial
management of them by hook or crook accumulates
enormous fortunes in single hands; how this accumulated
wealth sometimes grows more greedy and unscrupulous
the more it increases; how it seeks to control for its pur
poses governments and legislatures and courts and the
feeders and organs of public opinion, and how in some
cases it has succeeded. With growing apprehension you
see the Senate of the United States gradually invaded by
millionaires whose whole distinction is wealth and whose
world of action is making money. And an instinctive
fear creeps over you that, unless this dangerous tendency
be checked, or at least kept within bounds, not only our
social life will be disastrously demoralized, but that our
political contests will become mere wrangles between
different bands of public robbers, legislation only a matter
of purchase and sale and the whole government a fester
ing mass of corruption ; and that thus this great Republic
will rapidly go the way of many predecessors — grow,
flourish, become corrupt, rot and perish.
Examine your own inmost thoughts and you will have
to admit that just there you see our danger. It is an
instinctive apprehension, but the instinct is correct.
You may, indeed, say that we are after all still far from
the ultimate catastrophe. You may also say that we
can never expect to have a state of moral perfection in
politics. That is true. There will probably always be
1884] Carl Schurz 247
some attempt at corrupt practices, more or less, as there
will always be some highway robbery. But the extent
of those corrupt practices, the more or less, and, therefore,
the damage and danger arising from them, will depend
upon the popular maintenance of that moral standard
according to which corruption is branded as a dishonor
able thing, condemned as a crime and treated as such.
As long as it is branded and condemned you can fight
and repress it with effect. But I ask you in all candor
and entreat you to consider it well : what will the effect be
if corruption not only ceases to be branded with dishonor,
but if men tainted with it are held up, not merely by
some individuals, but by the people, as men to be admired
and honored, as models for the emulation of the ambitious?
There will, I admit, always be some highway robbery.
But there will not be very much as long as highway
robbers are treated as criminals and sent to prison. But
what would become of society if highway robbers were
honored as model citizens and made presidents of trust
companies?
And this, just this, fatal leap the American people are
asked to take in this Presidential election. Consider
it well. It is success that attracts the eager eye of the
young. Public honors mean the popular approval of
public conduct, and the public conduct of him who
receives them is set up by the people as a model for
the ambitious to follow. The more powerful that
model, the higher the pedestal on which it stands. The
Presidency of the United States is the highest. What
will the model teach in this case, and what kind of ambi
tion will it excite? How will it work to teach our young
by this example of popular approval that in order to win
the highest honors of the Republic it is no longer necessary
to be officially honest? What will the effect be upon
our aspiring politicians if they are told by the American
248 The Writings of [1884
people that as men in high place they may prostitute
their official power for private gain, and then lie about
it, and then baffle investigation by refusing to have
their "private business" inquired into, and then be ex
posed by their own showing, and have all this known by
the American people, and still be elected Presidents of the
United States? Where will our public morals be if the
American people by this election proclaim that in their
opinion these practices are "all right, " and that the man
who has conspicuously indulged in them is just the man to
be distinguished and exalted as the great representative
American with a big A?
If you want to know what the result of Mr. Elaine's
election would be, stop and observe what the result of
his mere nomination already has been. What do you
see? Men high in standing, who but yesterday were
shocked at such things as Mr. Elaine has done, who
thought that the people would and ought to brand them
with their emphatic disapproval, now meekly apologizing
for the same things and dismissing them as little eccen
tricities of genius. Nay, some of them grow fairly
facetious at the "Pharisees," or "saints," or "dudes,"
or "gentle hermits" who denounce corruption to-day
as they themselves denounced it yesterday. Indeed,
"Pharisees" and "saints." What, then, are the strange
and extravagant things which these Pharisees and saints
demand, and which after Mr. Elaine's nomination have
suddenly become so ridiculous? Do they ask that a
candidate for the Presidency should be the ideal man
and the embodiment of all the human virtues? That he
should part his hair in the middle and wear lavender
gloves? No, not that. But these strange creatures,
these "Pharisees" and "dudes," insist that a man to be
elected President of the United States should be a man
of integrity; that he should have a just sense of official
Carl Schurz 249
honor; that he should not be one with a record of prosti
tuted official power, such as the Mulligan letters and the
investigation show, upon his back. That is all. Why,
how ridiculous this is, to be sure! Have you ever heard
anything so outlandish?
Well, fellow-citizens, when you see grave men, men of
public standing, suddenly disposed to laugh at other men
who to-day refuse to honor bad practices which yesterday
they all in common condemned, it is not altogether
amusing. It is a rather serious symptom of the moral
effect Mr. Elaine's mere nomination has already produced.
But it is only one of many. The Republican party once
proudly and justly called itself the party of moral ideas.
Where are those moral ideas now? What is the answer
of the thorough-paced partisan when you remind him of
"the party of moral ideas" of the past, and point at the
record of his candidate? "Hang moral ideas, we are
for the party!" And he will tell you further that, what
ever may become of your moral ideas, you are in honor
bound to be for the party too. The Republican party
was a party of freemen and volunteers. From the Whigs
and from the Democrats they came, proud of having cut
their party ties, and they gathered around the anti-
slavery banner, for this they thought the cause of right.
And now the spokesmen of the same party tell you that
he who opposes the candidates of his party because he
conscientiously believes it wrong to support them com
mits a dishonorable act.
As a member of a party I do not cease to be a citizen.
Under all circumstances the duties which I owe as a
citizen to my country are superior to the duties which I
can possibly owe to any party. When I go as a delegate
to a party convention, I consult with others as to what
may be best for party action. When as a voter I go to the
polls, I consult my own conscience about what is best
250 The Writings of [1884
for the country's welfare. And if I conscientiously find
that what the party demands is not for the good of the
country, then it is not only my right but my duty as a citi
zen to vote against it. Who will gainsay this? But now
we are told not only that a delegate to a convention has
no right to oppose his party's nominees, but that an
ordinary member of the party is by his honor forbidden
to do so. A new code of political honor is invented
which forbids us to be honest. There was an outcry
once in this country against the English principle : "Once
a subject, always a subject. " It seems the Elaine party
wants to improve upon this by the proclamation : " Once
a party member, always a party slave. " And what is
worse, we see men who know that all we say is true, and
who but yesterday said it themselves, stifle their con
sciences and wear the badge of that slavery.
But that is not all the mere nomination of Mr. Blaine has
already accomplished. As it is tainting the present so it is
defiling the past. How often have you had to read and to
hear these days that, as Mr. Blaine is pursued with charges
and abuse, so were Washington and Lincoln pursued, and
that between these three there is really little difference.
What a comparison! It is true Washington was called
by his enemies a monarchist and Lincoln a baboon. But
we cannot learn that either of them found it necessary
to defend himself against the imputation. If the friends
of Mr. Blaine want to establish a real parallel between
him and them they should carefully examine Washington's
and Lincoln's private correspondence. Among Washing
ton's letters they would have to find one somewhat like
this:
HEADQUARTERS OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY.
To W. FISHER, Esq., Army Contractor:
My dear Mr. Fisher: Your offer to admit me to a par
ticipation in your beef contract is very generous. Accept
1884] Carl Schurz 251
my thanks. But I want more. You spoke of your friend
Caldwell, who has the flour contract, as willing to dispose of
a share of his interest to me. I wish he would make the
proposition definite. Tell him that I feel I shall not prove a
deadhead in the enterprise. I see various channels in which
I know I can be useful.
Sincerely your friend,
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
P. S. — In looking over my order books, I find that when
Mr. Caldwell delivered the last lot of flour there was some
irregularity, which induced the Commissary of the Army to
refuse acceptance. I promptly cut the red tape by ordering
the Commissary to accept the delivery at once, so that I
saved Mr. Caldwell much trouble in getting the flour passed
and in obtaining his money. Thus, without knowing him, I
did him a favor which must have been worth much to him.
Let him hurry up his proposition to me.
G. W.
Or in Mr. Lincoln's private correspondence they might
look for a letter somewhat like this:
EXECUTIVE MANSION.
My dear Mr. Fisher: Your agent, Mr. Elaine, a very
smart young man apparently, who got your Spencer rifle ac
cepted by the Ordnance Department, brought me your very
generous offer for a share in the contract, for which accept
my thanks. I learn, also, of your friend Mr. Caldwell's
disposition to let me have a share of his interest in the manu
facture of belts and cartridge boxes. Let him make me a
definite proposition as quickly as possible. I tell you I am not
going to be a deadhead in that enterprise. I feel it. There
are lots of channels in which I can make myself useful. By
the way, you can tell Mr. Caldwell that I did him a great
favor some time ago without knowing him. A large lot of
belts and cartridge boxes were detained here because the
ordnance officers wanted more time to inspect them. But
the troops needed them, and I ordered them to be hurried to
252 The Writings of [1884
the front, and Caldwell got his money. You see? I want
him to send me a definite proposition at once.
Yours truly,
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Well, if such letters could be found among Washington's
and Lincoln's private correspondence, and if it could be
further discovered that Washington and Lincoln had
publicly declared that the interest they had in those
contracts was only such as any other citizen might have
purchased on the Boston market, and that they could
not have exercised any power with regard to those con
tracts, because in the one case it was the business of the
Commissary and in the other of the Ordnance Depart
ment, and if Washington and Lincoln had taken those
letters from Mr. Fisher's bookkeeper without authority
and kept them notwithstanding a promise to return
them, and if Washington and Lincoln before a committee
of Congress investigating these things had time and
again protested against inquiry into their private business,
and if Washington and Lincoln had accumulated large
fortunes while in office — then, I admit, the parallel
would be justified, and Washington and Lincoln, too,
might be enrolled in the order of Americans with a big A.
But as history knows them it would have been a delight
to see Washington's boot kick the man suggesting such
propositions out of his tent, and to hear Lincoln crying
out at the insulting tempter, "Do you take me for a
knave?" and whirling him down the stairs of the White
House.
You see what Mr. Blaine's nomination has already
done for us. Not only has it taken the moral backbone
out of many living men who were aggressively honest
before, but it has led even to the desecration of the graves
of the dead. Washington and Lincoln had to be paraded
1884] Carl Schurz 253
as tattooed men to make the American people forget
the dark spots on the Republican candidate. Our great
historic names, whose significance should ever be the
inspiration of American youth, had to be dragged down
into the dust to meet his. We have had to witness one
of those infamous attempts at profanation which even
the most passionate zeal of partisanship cannot excuse.
But if the mere nomination of Mr. Blaine has accom
plished this, what would be the effects of his election to
the Presidency? Imagine that event to have taken
place. Imagine then one of the older men among us
with the old-fashioned notions of better times to meet a
company of young, able, active and aspiring politicians,
and to discourse to them about their duties as public
men. He would, of course, mention foremost among
those duties unselfish devotion to the public interest,
scrupulous honesty and the maintenance of the highest
standard of official honor. You must not be surprised
if an answer like this comes back: "Old friend, you are
behind the times. That was good talk years ago, but
only Pharisees and dudes speak so now, and they, you
should know, are very ridiculous persons. As for us,
we are going into politics to make money. We see vari
ous channels of usefulness there, and we are not going
to be deadheads in anything that offers itself." "But,"
you object, "the people will never tolerate such a thing. "
What will the answer be? "You are behind the times
again, old friend. Years ago the people might not have
tolerated it, but now they do. They rather like it. Do
you know the story of James G. Blaine? His case was
clear enough. Everybody knew that he had been 'on
the make' when he was Speaker of the House. There
were the Mulligan letters and the testimony, and the
fact that he had made a large fortune without any busi
ness. There could be no doubt about it. And what
254 The Writings of [1884
happened? The Republican party nominated him for
the Presidency. And Mr. Evarts made a long speech
for him, with several jokes in it. And those who protested
against it were laughed at as dudes and Pharisees. And
he was elected President, and called the great representa
tive American. You see the American people like this
sort of thing. This is the way to wealth and to public
honor at the same time, as in James G. Elaine's case.
That is what we want too. It is the road to the Presi
dency. And some of us may get there in the same way.
Let us be 'on the make,' then." What would you an
swer? Would not, in case of Mr. Elaine's election, all
this be true, every word of it?
But more would be true ; and here I ask for the attention
of business men. Do you think that the contagion of
that example would remain confined to the political
field? Do you think that the sanction and encourage
ment, aye, the glorification which being "on the make"
would receive by the popular vote for Mr. Elaine, would
not be noticed by your cashiers and your bookkeepers
and your salesmen and your clerks? Will not many of
them ask themselves why they should be more con
scientious in the discharge of their business duties and
the use of their business opportunities than the man whom
the American people honored with the Presidency was
in the use of his opportunities as Speaker of the House
of Representatives? Have you not had enough of that
sort of thing? Do you want to give it an additional
stimulus by letting every one in the country who handles
other people's money or goods know that the American
people regard being "on the make" by hook or crook
rather as an elegant accomplishment which will not
stand in the way of the highest honors?
Now, what does all this signify? It is what will follow
if in electing a man with a notorious and conspicuous
1884] Carl Schurz 255
record such as Mr. Blame's to the Presidency of the United
States, the American people take the fatal step of de
claring the corrupt abuse of public power, the prostitution
of official trust for private gain, will no longer be branded
with dishonor, but will henceforth not even stand in the
way of a man's promotion to the highest office of the
Republic.
There is corruption enough now. But when the
American people shall have proclaimed that they care
nothing for a proper sense of honor in their public men
and the public service, then a crop of corruption and
demoralization will ripen such as we have never dreamed
of. You complain now that the money kings and the
great corporations have too much power in our public
concerns. But when the American people by a solemn
popular election shall have taught our politicians, young
and old, that they can make themselves rich by the
prostitution of official trust without fear of disgrace, that
they may have pelf and public honor at the same time,
there will be no limit to the corrupting power of wealth,
and your dreaded money kings and corporations will do
in open daylight what they now attempt in the dark.
Corruption will irresistibly " broaden down from pre
cedent to precedent." Its flood may overwhelm all
that we hold dear and are proud of to-day.
Citizens of the United States, I warn you solemnly
not to take this fatal leap. The honor of the American
people, the vitality of our institutions, the whole future
of the Republic are involved in the issue. Do you want
to protect that honor, to save those institutions from
deadly rot, and the future of the Republic from incalcu
lable disaster and disgrace? There is but one thing to do.
If a political party, however great and glorious, has been
so forgetful of its dignity and its duty as to nominate a
candidate for the Presidency conspicuously bearing the
256 The Writings of [1884
fatal taint, then the American people must show that
they have moral sense enough to reject him, and to reject
him overwhelmingly. That is the way of salvation.
There is no other.
It is vain for Mr. Elaine's friends to cry out that, how
ever grave his offenses may have been, the people have
already again and again condoned them. If it were so,
it would be the highest time to reconsider before pro
nouncing the final verdict. But I deny it. It is not so.
True, the legislature of Maine elected him a Senator,
and the Republican National Convention nominated him
as their candidate after his offenses had become known.
So much the worse for the Maine legislature and for the
Republican Convention. But they have only proved
that some people have forgiven and forgotten his delin
quencies. The question is, How many? The American
people will pronounce their opinion on those offenses in
November for the first time, and I trust it will be shown
by an overwhelming majority that the American people
have never forgotten them, and never will make the
man guilty of them President of the United States.
In view of all this, of the glaring unfitness of the nomi
nation, and of the fearful demoralization and disgrace
the election of such a candidate by the American people
would inflict upon this Republic, I do not hesitate to
declare as my honest conviction that the consequences
of Mr. Blaine's election, immediate and remote, would
be far worse, infinitely more dangerous to our future as
a Nation, than anything a Democratic Administration
could under present circumstances bring with it. I mean
exactly what I say. Take all the things which the most
fanatical Republicans predict and the most nervous of
them fear as to the possible results of Democratic
success — a precipitate disturbance of our tariff policy,
renewed troubles in the South, a clean sweep and a new
1884] Carl Schurz 257
deal in all the Federal offices — consequences which I by
no means admit as probable with such a President as the
Democrats have nominated, at the head of affairs — but
admit for argument's sake that all these things would
follow; yet all the evils thus predicted — business confusion
and financial loss, violence in the South and another
carnival of spoils in the Federal offices — would only be of
a temporary nature. The energy of our business com
munity and the resources of the country would quickly
help us over our financial embarrassments, and bad laws
can be changed by amendment and repeal. New disorder
in the South and a spoils carnival would quickly provoke
an overwhelming reaction, and the guilty party would
soon lose power again. All these apprehended results
of a Democratic victory, if they really did occur, would,
therefore, be only temporary. Subsequent action would
obliterate them to the last trace. They would be like
flesh wounds, painful enough at the time, but capable
of easy and permanent healing. But you let the American
people declare that in the bestowal of their highest trusts
and distinctions they care nothing for official honor;
that gross and systematic prostitution of official power
for private gain, even in the most important positions
in the Government, is not regarded by the people as an of
fense disqualifying a public man for the most exalted honor
in the land, the Presidency of the United States — let the
American people declare that, and you have injected
into our system the virus of a disease which is not of a
mere passing nature, which will not be easily and perma
nently cured by a mere reaction, but which will fester on
and on, attacking the very fountain of our vitality. This
is not a mere flesh wound — this is poisoning of the blood.
Therefore I repeat that nothing a Democratic success
can bring with it will be as bad in its nature and as danger
ous in its consequences to the future of the Republic as
VOL. IV. — 17
258 The Writings of [1884
the mere fact of Mr. Blame's election. And I am ready
further to declare that, for this reason, while I had my
preferences among the Democratic candidates, I should
have been willing, as against Mr. Elaine, to support any
of them, provided he be an honest man with a perfectly
untarnished record of official integrity. And here I may
say, by the way, that some of Mr. Elaine's friends pretend
that the nomination of Mr. Hendricks for the Vice-
Presidency, together with Governor Cleveland in the first
place, must be a great embarrassment to men of my way
of thinking, and that we are unwilling to face it. They
are mistaken. I am willing to face it. There are things
in Mr. Hendricks 's record, in the way of opinion and
endeavor, which, I say it frankly, I was opposed to at
the time and which I would oppose now were they to be
repeated. But there is one thing which is not to be found
in Mr. Hendricks's record, and that is the least flavor of
corruption or of the prostitution of official power for
private gain. Here is what the New York Tribune said
of him some years ago: "An honest jurist, an able and
incorruptible statesman and a wise politician, his views
on public questions are entitled to great weight. His
record as Senator, Representative, Commissioner and
State legislator is pure and untarnished." And this
happens to be now the main question. I therefore do
not hesitate to say that were Mr. Hendricks not the
candidate for the Vice-Presidency merely, but the Presi
dency itself, I should, in spite of our disagreements on
subjects of policy, accept his election as a welcome escape
from the blood poisoning with which Mr. Elaine's election
would inevitably curse the American Republic.
Nobody can deny that I have treated Mr. Elaine fairly
and with moderation. I have not depended upon state
ments made by his enemies or detractors. I have not
even quoted the fiery denunciations poured upon him,
1884] Carl Schurz 259
not many years ago, by some of his recently magnetized
friends. I have discussed only one phase of his career,
and only one salient point in that phase. I have not
taken up his foreign policy in order to inquire whether
it is true that he recklessly jeoparded the peace of the
country, and that the most important international
questions, as soon as he touched them, began to revolve
around a claim and seemed to turn into a job. I have
not touched his plan of distributing the surplus revenue,
which, of course, involves the preservation of the surplus
as the fountain of a multitude of jobs. I have not touched
his original and curious conception that the people of
Virginia should not repudiate their debt, but neither
should they pay it, for the United States should pay it
for them, and so on. All these things, interesting and
instructive specimens of statesmanship, I have left aside.
I have, as I said, discussed only one salient point in one
phase of his career, and in doing so I have called to the
stand as principal witness Mr. Elaine himself. By his
own words, written and spoken — words authentic beyond
cavil, words imprinted on the official records of the Govern
ment — Mr. Elaine has convinced me, and, I trust, has
convinced you, that his defeat as a candidate for the
Presidency is at this time the supreme duty of American
citizenship. To vindicate the honor of the American
name it should be done by a phenomenal majority, so
that the world may know how strongly the American
heart beats for righteousness and honest government.
And to repair the honor of the Republican party it should
be done by Republican votes. Yes, to repair the honor
of the Republican party it should be done by Republican
votes, to make it known that, while a strange debauch-
ment of conscience permitted such a nomination to be
made, the true Republican heart revolted at it, to undo
by its own act the disgraceful mischief.
260 The Writings of [1884
But here the partisan cry rises up that this would
involve party defeat. Republicans, do you not see that
the best Republican principles have already been defeated
by that Republican nomination? Do you not see that
those principles, which were the great soul of the Repub
lican party, command you to maintain good government
at any cost, be it even the timely sacrifice of party ascen
dancy? I am speaking to Republicans, and, I trust, to
patriotic men and to men of sense. Many of you, perhaps,
recoil from the thought of having the Government, by
the defeat of the Republican party, pass into the hands
of the Democrats. There was a time when such a trans
fer of power appeared to involve great danger. That
was the time of the civil war, of supreme National peril.
That time lies twenty years behind us. The Union is no
longer in jeopardy. The existence of the Government
as such is safe. We are in profound peace. I have
shown you that, aside from the question of honesty in
government, there is none the decision of which one way
or the other would result in more than temporary incon
venience. This is an auspicious time for looking calmly
at the nature of our Government and its requirements.
Every thinking man will admit these propositions: repub
lican government, as it has shaped itself, is government
through political parties. This certainly does, in the
nature of things, not mean that one party should remain
in possession of the Government all the time. Such a
state of things would inevitably in the long run bring
forth very corrupt and very tyrannical government,
because it would be irresponsible. What a long unin
terrupted period of party ascendancy may accomplish
we have already learned by painful experience. I go
further, and affirm: The very notion that there is only
one political party capable of carrying on the Government,
or that there is only one party that can be trusted with it,
i884] Carl Schurz 261
will in the long run become seriously dangerous to free
institutions. A republic in which this assumption is
practically maintained will be a republic only in name.
The absurdity of the assumption is self-evident. The
American people are almost equally divided in politics.
In 1880 the Republican vote was 4,450,921 ; the Demo
cratic vote, 4,447,888 — about one-half of the people on
one side and one-half on the other. If it were true that
the existence of the Republic depended upon the ability
of one-half of the people to keep the Government per
manently in their own hands, and out of the hands of the
other half, the Republic might as well wind up at once
and have a receiver appointed. It is absurd. There
must be, therefore, in the very nature of republican
government, occasionally a change from one party to
another.
Now, the Republican party has been in power for
twenty-four successive years — nearly a quarter of a
century. Candidly, my Republican friends, you cannot
think that the Republican party should or can always
remain in power. Does it not occur to you, when looking
at the present condition of things, that it would have
been much better for the Republican party had it already
gone through the discipline of some interruption? At
any rate, every sensible man knows that with the cer
tainty of fate it will have to go out of power sometime.
No sane being will deny this. Well, then, I beg you
soberly to consider whether, all things taken into account,
the present time is not as propitious a one as you can
ever expect to find.
Look at the circumstances surrounding us. I repeat,
we are in profound peace. Nobody will pretend that,
as far as political parties are concerned, the existence of
the country depends on the ascendancy of either of them.
I have already shown you what dangerous consequences
262 The Writings of [1884
the election of the Republican candidate would draw
after it. I will, indeed, not say that Mr. Elaine is the
most objectionable candidate the Republican party will
ever nominate; for if you elect him, heaven only knows
what that precedent may bring forth next. There may
be at least a chance for geniuses of the school of Dorsey
or Brady, or similar statesmen of magnetic faculties.
But the very fact that the election of the present Repub
lican nominee would pave the way for such a class of
successors is in itself a strong reason why he should not
be elected. This is bad enough ; it would be folly to wait
for worse and to invite it.
On the other hand, the Democratic party has never
presented a candidate whom any friend of good govern
ment, Democrat or Republican, could see step into the
Presidential chair with a greater feeling of security than
Grover Cleveland. This time, therefore, is uncommonly
propitious for a change of power, on account of the safety
with which it can be effected. And here I may remark,
by the way, that the scandalous stories recently circulated
about Mr. Cleveland's private character have, to my
knowledge, been inquired into by several parties sepa
rately — by men of high standing in Buffalo, by a clerical
gentleman of the editorial staff of the Independent and
by others — and that the reports of all of them, as they
have come to me, based upon a conscientious study of
the facts of the case, agree in pronouncing those stories
monstrous calumnies on the man, which will recoil upon
the inventors. The public will undoubtedly hear more
from the investigators through the press. With this con
viction I stand here speaking of Governor Cleveland. I
beg Republicans to remember that when Mr. Cleveland
was elected governor of New York two years ago, it was
through Republican support that he received his enormous
majority. And I am sure every Republican in New
1884] Carl Schurz 263
York whose object was not mere party advantage, but
an honest, able and fearless administration of public
affairs for the public good, has ever since congratulated
himself upon the support he gave that Democratic candi
date. To be sure, while receiving the hearty approbation
and applause of the friends of good government, Governor
Cleveland also made enemies: the bitterest among them
were the greedy politicians for whom he was not a good
enough partisan because he was so good a governor; and
he was so good a governor just because he was not a good
enough partisan for them.
Mr. Elaine's advocates loudly complain that Governor
Cleveland is not a statesman. It must be admitted that
he is not a statesman in the Elaine sense. If he were, it
would be dangerous to vote for him. He has evidently
not the genius to be all things to everybody. He is not
magnetic enough to draw every rascal to his support.
He will probably be cold enough to freeze every job out
of the White House. He is not brilliant enough to cover
the whole world with flighty schemes. But, unless I am
much mistaken, he possesses very much of that kind of
statesmanship which is now especially required and for
which Mr. Elaine has conspicuously disqualified himself.
And that is the statesmanship of honest and efficient
administration. What is the kind of business which
under present circumstances the Executive branch of the
National Government has to attend to? It is in the main
administrative business. It is to see to it that the laws
be faithfully and efficiently executed, and, to that end,
to introduce and maintain honest and efficient methods
for the execution of the laws, and to enforce the neces
sary responsibility. This is administration, and this is
under present circumstances the principal business of the
Executive. No flighty genius, therefore, is required to
make business for the Government; but what we want
264 The Writings of [1884
is solid ability and courageous integrity to see to it that
the business which is found there be well done.
Of this kind of statesmanship Mr. Cleveland, as all
who have impartially observed his career will admit,
possesses in a high degree the instinct, and now also the
experience. When he entered upon his duties as mayor of
Buffalo, a few years ago, he said: "It seems to me that
a successful and faithful administration of the govern
ment of a city may be accomplished by constantly bearing
in mind that we are the trustees and agents of our fellow-
citizens, holding their funds in sacred trust to be expended
for their benefit; that we should at all times be prepared
to render an honest account to them touching the manner
of its expenditure; and that the affairs of the city should
be conducted as far as possible upon the same principles
as a good business man manages his private concerns."
You may say that this is neither very brilliant nor quite
original. But it contains after all the fundamental
principles of honest and efficient administration, applic
able not only to a city, but to a State and to the Nation.
And when a public man coming into power speaks such
words, and fully understands what they mean, and has
the ability and courage to give them full effect, he pos
sesses a statesmanship for executive office infinitely more
valuable to the country than Mr. Blaine's statesmanlike
skill and experience in making himself "useful in various
channels," and being a deadhead in none.
And that Mr. Cleveland did understand the meaning
of what he said and was determined to carry it out, he
showed sometimes in a way which astonished the natives.
Here is an instance: When the city council of Buffalo,
composed of Democrats and Republicans, had passed a
resolution approving an extravagant contract for street-
cleaning, his veto message contained the following lan
guage: "This is a time for plain speech. I withhold my
1884] Carl Schurz 265
assent from the same [the resolution] because I regard
it as the culmination of a most barefaced, impudent and
shameless scheme to betray the interests of the people
and to worse than squander the public money. I will
not be misunderstood in this matter. There are those
whose votes were given for this resolution whom I can
not and will not suspect of a willful neglect of the interests
they are sworn to protect; but it has been fully demon
strated that there are influences, both in and about your
honorable body, which it behooves every honest man to
watch and avoid with the greatest care." This meant
as plainly as parliamentary language could express it:
"Gentlemen, there are some scoundrels among you. I
know it. And I want you to know that I know it, and
that I watch you, and that your schemes will not succeed
as long as I am here. " I like that kind of statesmanship.
The taxpayers of Buffalo liked it. The people of the
State soon showed that they liked it. And I think the
people of the United States would like it too, the knaves
always excepted.
Mr. Cleveland had never been a professed civil service
reformer. But he soon showed that he understood and
adopted the vital principles of civil service reform by
instinct. He said in his letter of acceptance when nomi
nated for the governorship: " Subordinates in public
place should be selected and retained for their efficiency,
and not because they may be used to accomplish partisan
ends. The people have a right to demand here, as in
cases of private employment, that their money be paid
to those who will render the best service in return, and
that the appointment to and tenure of such places should
depend upon ability and merit. " This is the whole in a
nutshell. And he not only understood it and said it,
but he acted accordingly when in power, for he favored
and signed and faithfully helped to execute the civil
266 The Writings of [1884
service act for the State of New York which embodies
just these principles, although he knew that it cut off the
loaves and fishes of public spoil in a great measure from
his own party. But more. He said in the same letter
of acceptance: "The expenditure of money to influence
the action of the people at the polls or to secure legislation
is calculated to excite the gravest concern. It is useless
and foolish to shut our eyes to the fact that this evil exists
among us, and the party which leads in an honest effort
to return to better and purer methods will receive the
confidence of our citizens and secure their support. "
Having said this, he favored and signed a prohibition of
political assessments in the civil service of New York,
although he knew that this measure would most severely
curtail the electioneering funds of his own party.
As a member of the Civil Service Reform Association,
I may say that when we prepared and urged a legislative
reform measure we never inquired whether Governor Cleve
land, although a Democrat, would sign it, because we knew
he would if it was a good one. When the citizens of New
York City sought to correct the crying abuses of their
municipal government, they, too, always counted with
the same confidence upon the governor, no matter
whether the Democratic or the Republican party might
be hurt by a measure of true reform, and that confidence
was always justified. And, by the way, it is rather a
shabby piece of business that some of the gentlemen who
leaned upon the governor as one of their principal pillars
of strength, and were then full of praise of him for his
courageous resistance to party pressure, should throw
paltry quibbles at him since he has become a candidate
for the Presidency. Had he not been nominated it
would have been said that the unbending courage for
the right with which he resisted pressure coming from
his own party was the very thing that defeated him. It
Carl Schurz 267
was, indeed, the thing which made his enemies hate him
so bitterly. But take his whole record. When he ceased
to be mayor of Buffalo a Republican paper said: " Yes
terday Buffalo lost the best mayor she ever had. " When
he ceases to be governor, to become President of the
United States, these very gentlemen will say: "New
York never had a more efficient governor than this. "
In justice we are bound to say that here is a man whose
ideas of honest, intelligent and efficient administration
are remarkably clear and correct ; who has not only prom
ised but performed; whose performance, in fact, went
ahead of the manifesto ; who has proved himself to possess
in an eminent degree the principal requisites of executive
efficiency, which are incorruptible integrity, a clear head,
a well-informed mind, a devotion to duty shrinking from
no labor, a cool judgment, a high sense of official honor,
a keen instinct of justice and that rare courage which,
whenever the public good requires it, firmly resists not only
the opposition of a hostile party but, which is more difficult,
the entreaty of party friends. You fear that another
party coming into power will, in its eagerness to get pos
session of the offices, turn out the good men together
with the bad, and you ask whether there is a man who as
President would be strong enough to withstand the pres
sure of his partisans. I admit you cannot find many
strong enough to do this, but I do not think I risk any
thing in saying that Mr. Cleveland is one of the few. I
should not be surprised if he were the strongest of them
all. As to the higher spheres of statesmanship, it may
be remembered that in every position of power assigned
to him he has shown an ability to perform its duties
beyond the expectations of his friends. And when he
now says, as he did a week ago in accepting the nomina
tion, that he considers himself pledged to give to the
people "the utmost benefits of a pure and honest ad-
268 The Writings of [1884
ministration of national affairs/' we may recall the fact
that so far not one of his pledges has remained unfulfilled.
Indeed, a man with just such a public record and just
such qualities might be seen in the Presidental chair with
out alarm, whatever party name he may bear; for he
need only follow his own example in order to adopt from
any party what is good, and to reject, even coming from
his own party, what is bad. He would be especially what
the hour demands: The representative of courageous
conscience in the administration of public affairs.
You will admit, therefore, my Republican friends, that
if a change of party in power must come sometime, the
present time is an exceedingly propitious one, considering
the safety with which the inevitable transition can now
be effected. You can scarcely hope to find a man more
peculiarly adapted to the occasion.
But, let me repeat, even if it were not so, even if greater
risks were to be taken and real perils to be feared, the
duty of the hour would always remain the same. It is to
defeat a candidate whose election to the Presidency
would be a proclamation to all the world that a high
sense of official honor is no longer required in the Govern
ment of the United States, and that the American people
consider a man who has offered for prostitution his
official power to make money as still worthy of the high
est honors of the Republic, to be held up as a model for
emulation to this and coming generations.
Republicans, I yield to none of you in pride of the
spirit and the great achievements of the Republican party
in the past. There are undoubtedly men before me who
took an active part in the great Republican campaign of
1860. I know you will feel your pulse beat quicker when
you remember the joyous glow with which the enthusiastic
consciousness of a noble cause filled our hearts; with what
eagerness we went into the conflict, having nothing to
1884] Carl Schurz 269
apologize for and nothing to conceal; with what affection
and confidence we commended to the suffrages of the
people our standard bearer, honest Abraham Lincoln.
Remember how, under Republican guidance, the Ameri
can Union was washed clean of the stain of slavery, and
the great rebellion was vanquished, and Abraham Lin
coln was borne once more on our shield, with the same
faith and the same affectionate confidence, for the trials of
power had given to his honesty still more radiant luster.
And now, after twenty-four years of uninterrupted
ascendancy, what has the party come to? Look at it,
the party of moral ideas, presenting as its great leader
and representative a man whose unclean record it cannot
deny and dare not face. Listen to its spokesmen, how
they dodge and squirm around that record as something
too hot to touch — unfortunate attorneys, wretchedly
troubled by the feeling that, if they respect themselves,
they must take care not to become identified with the
public morals of their client. Watch them, how they use
the tariff question as a great fig leaf which they stretch
and spread to make it cover and hide the crookedness of
their standard bearer! What a burning shame and dis
grace is this! Pride of party indeed! Those who are
truly proud of the good the party has done will be too
proud to consent to its degrading perversion into an
instrument of evil. If the great party which abolished
slavery and saved the Republic is to serve as an instru
ment to poison the life of the same Republic by crowning
corruption with its highest honors, then the truly proud
Republicans will wash their hands of it.
As they understood the great problem of the anti-
slavery period, so they understand the great problem of
to-day. The contest in which we are engaged is not a
mere crusade against one man. It is not a mere race
between two. It is one of the great struggles for the
270 The Writings of [1884
vitality of this Nation, the second one in our days. In
1860, when the slave-power had stretched out its hand to
secure its ascendancy in this Union forever, we fought to
reestablish the fundamental condition of human society,
which is freedom. And now, when the corrupt tendencies
stimulated by the civil war and the commotions following
it culminate in reaching for the prestige of National
approval, we fight to reestablish the fundamental con
dition of good government, which is honesty. The cause
of to-day is no less great and vital than was the cause of
twenty-five years ago, and those who were proudest to
stand up for freedom then will be proud to stand up for
honest government now.
This is not the cause of a mere party. It is greater
than any party. It is in the broadest sense the cause of
the people, the cause of all classes and honorable occupa
tions, alike. It speaks the language of interest and says to
our merchants and business men: You know that the
successful working of commerce and trade hangs upon
trust between man and man. You need credit as a nation
as you need confidence between individuals. If you dis
cover that a managing man in your business is in secret
concert with any of your customers, and uses the oppor
tunities of his position for his own personal profit, you
confide in him no longer, but you discharge him. If you
learn that the cashier of your bank so uses the opportuni
ties of his place, you distrust the institution and with
draw your deposits. What will you think of yourselves,
what will the world think of your business judgment and
your sense of honesty, if in something far greater than
your shop or your bank, if in the Government of your
country you promote the man who has done this, to the
highest place of honor and trust? You complain that
the credit of our great enterprises has most injuriously
suffered at home and abroad by the unscrupulous tricks
1884] Carl Schurz 271
of the inside rings in corporate management. How will
it be if you give the solemn sanction of your votes to
something akin to the same practice in the Government
of the Republic?
This is the cause of labor and says to the workingmen :
What you need above all things is a government of just
laws and of honest men to execute the laws. You need
men who have the conscience and courage to say "No"
to you when the law forbids that which you may ask for;
for such men will have the conscience and courage to say
"No" to those more powerful than you when they ask
for what is unjust and injurious to you. Beware of the
demagogue who the more he flatters you with promises
to-day, the more he will be likely to betray you to-morrow.
Beware of the political jobber, for in the very nature of
things he is always the monopolist's own pet and bed
fellow. How can you, laboring men, so betray your own
interests as to support a candidate whose election will
mean that in the opinion of the American people jobbery
in the Government is a legitimate occupation, not to be
punished, but to be honored?
This is the cause of patriotism and national pride, and
it says to every citizen of the Republic: Do you want
the world abroad to respect the American name? Then
show them first that the American people respect them
selves. The American people will show how they respect
themselves by the choice they make for their highest
honors. Ask yourselves, Americans, how this Republic
will stand in the esteem of mankind, and how its influence
will be upheld by the confidence of nations if the American
people by a solemn vote proclaim to the world that official
honor is to them a thing of indifference, and that they
select their President from among those who have traded
on high official trust to make money.
And in the face of all this still the cry of "Party!"
272 The Writings of [1884
Woe to the republic whose citizens think of party and
nothing but party, when the honor of their country and the
vitality of their Government are at stake! But, happily,
what an impotent cry it is in these days! Look around
you and see what is going on. The time of a new mi
gration of political forces seems to have come. The
elements are restlessly moving, in all directions breaking
through the barriers of old organizations. Here they
march and there, some with uncertain purpose, crossing
one another's paths and sometimes even their own. No
doubt, one of the candidates of the two great parties will
be President. But neither of the two parties, when it
issues from the struggle, will be what it was before. This
is the disorder which evolves new energies, for good or
for evil. Such are periods of promise, but also of danger.
What will come we cannot foresee. But in the confusion
that surrounds us it is the part of patriotic men to stand
together with clear heads and one firm purpose. Their
duty is plain. It is to see to it that, whatever the future
may build up, its foundations at least be kept sound;
that the honor of the American people be preserved intact,
and that all political parties, new or old, become forever
impressed with the utter hopelessness of any attempt to
win success without respecting that vital condition of
our greatness and glory, which is honest government.
TO HENRY C. BOWEN
no W. 34TH ST., NEW YORK, Aug. 6, 1884.
Last Monday I was in the office of the Independent
at the instance of your son who desired me to look at an
article written by Dr. Ward upon the Cleveland scandal.
I did so and found that the article was based upon infor
mation which entirely coincided with that which I had
received from Buffalo myself. The conclusions to which
1884] Carl Schurz 273
Dr. Ward had come seemed to me also entirely justified,
and I was rejoiced to see reason to hope that the Inde
pendent would give its powerful aid in guiding the con
science of the country by positive advice through the
acknowledged difficulties of the present situation. I need
not say that I was greatly disappointed in not rinding the
article in the number of the Independent which appeared
to-day, and considering the large number of people who
are looking to the Independent for counsel, and some of
whom had already been led by me to expect positive
advice now, I cannot help thinking that its non-appearance
is a public misfortune so great that I cannot refrain from
writing you about it.
The cause we are engaged in is the cause of honesty in
politics. The election of a man like Mr. Elaine would be
such an encouragement to the base and rapacious impulses
apt to govern the conduct of politicians, it would so
demoralize the public mind and open the floodgates of
corruption so wide, that it is no exaggeration to say the
success of our free institutions is at stake. I carried out
that idea, which unquestionably is the true issue of this
campaign, in a speech which I delivered last night at
Brooklyn. I may say that I am convinced all the great
vital questions of the anti-slavery struggle are in this, and
while in the anti-slavery struggle we could wait, a defeat
in this present contest would be a decisive one and produce
consequences which cannot be obliterated.
I think I am not wrong in believing that the present
silence of the Independent is owing to the scandals recently
told about Mr. Cleveland by some newspapers. I under
stand also that the investigation carried on by Dr. Twining
comes to the same conclusion at which other investigators
of the same case have arrived, and that the only thing of
importance it leaves standing in the case is the charge of
bastardy. I would certainly not ask and expect you to
VOL. IV.— IS
274 The Writings of [1884
make light of this charge. But what alarms me and what
would greatly distress other friends of good government
is the apprehension, that your laudable desire to vindicate
and promote virtue in all private relations might be
allowed to stand in the way of your making your great
influence felt in behalf of the great cause of public virtue
in the present pressing emergency. You will certainly not
fail to see that if this cause does not receive the full support
of those devoted to it now, the consequences will be so
disastrous to the whole American people that no good man
in a position of influence will like to share the responsi
bility for having checked the movement for honest
government now going on, on such grounds.
TO ALBERT H. WALKER
NEW YORK, Aug. 7, 1884.
I have received your kind letter of yesterday and beg
leave to say in reply that I shall read with sincere interest
your defense of Mr. Elaine when you make it, and you
will do me a favor by sending me a copy of it so that it
may under no circumstances escape my attention. And
you may count upon it that, if you convince me of error
either in my premises or my conclusions, I shall candidly
say so. But, as I have given much thought to this matter
and spared no trouble to get at the truth, and as I know
I have made my inquiries and drawn my conclusions in a
conscientious spirit, I cannot refrain from saying that, so
far, I firmly believe I am right.
FROM GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS
ASHFIELD, MASS., Aug. 15, 1884.
0[ thank you for the copy of your speech. Nothing could
be better in matter and manner, in tone and structure. It
1884] Carl Schurz 275
is a model of the best political oratory and a masterly presen
tation of the case. There will be nothing so good said upon
either side during the campaign.
I see that Elaine has begun a suit for libel, and I am very
glad, for if a story so universally told and believed be untrue,
the untruth ought to be known. The suit is a very important
event in the canvass — for if the story should be substantiated
Blaine is ruined — and if disproved, the reaction will cover the
public offenses. Cleveland will be seriously hurt by his scandaL7
TO PAUL BECHTNER
INDIAN HARBOR HOTEL,
GREENWICH, CONN., Aug. 20, 1884.
Your letter of the i6th inst., presenting to me in the
name of the "signers" an open reply to my Brooklyn
speech, has been forwarded to me here. I am certainly
far from underestimating the merit of that "reply" as
a literary effort ; but you must pardon me for saying that,
with the best possible intention, I cannot find anything
in it that in the remotest sense could stand as an answer to,
or a refutation of, the arguments submitted by me to my
hearers at Brooklyn. On the contrary, it seems to me to
betray a dangerous want of apprehension as to the facts
in the case, as well as the importance of them with regard
to the public welfare. However, I shall not enlarge upon
this subject in this letter which is to be a mere acknowledg
ment of yours, for it has long been my intention to visit
Milwaukee during this campaign, and I shall avail myself
of that opportunity to make a few remarks on your "open
reply " in public speech. I shall urgently invite the signers
of the document addressed to me, to give me the honor of
their personal presence on that occasion.
276 The Writings of [1884
TO GEORGE F. HOAR
NEW YORK, Aug. 22, 1884.
Senator: In the newspapers I find a letter addressed
by you to a friend, the principal object of which seems to
be to discredit some of the statements made by me in
a speech recently delivered at Brooklyn. You will par
don me for pointing out to you some serious mistakes
into which your zeal for your friend Mr. Blaine seems to
have betrayed you. Among them the following are the
most important:
I. On June 29, 1869, Mr. Blaine, then Speaker ot the
House of Representatives, wrote to Mr. W. Fisher, Jr.,
thanking him for having admitted him (Speaker Blaine)
to a participation in "the new railroad enterprise," the
Little Rock road, and expressing a strong desire to have
Mr. Cal dwell also "dispose of a share of his interest" to
him (Speaker Blaine), adding that he felt he would "not
prove a deadhead in the enterprise," and "saw various
channels in which he knew he could make himself useful. "
Mr. Caldwell hesitated to comply with Speaker Blaine's
wish. Thereupon, Mr. Blaine, three months afterward,
on October 4th, wrote Mr. Fisher two letters, in which he
related quite circumstantially how he (Speaker Blaine)
had, without knowing it, and in a correct way, done the
Little Rock road and Mr. Caldwell a great favor by an
exercise of his power as Speaker. At the same time he
reiterated his "anxious" request for the share of Mr.
Caldwell's interest in the enterprise spoken of three
months before, suggesting to Mr. Fisher to tell Mr. Cald
well about the "favor."
The question is what Speaker Blaine meant when he
said that he would not be a deadhead in the enterprise,
and that he saw various channels in which he knew he
could make himself useful; and also what the object was
of the letters of October 4th. You say Speaker Blaine
Carl Schurz 277
meant simply that he was acquainted with many capi
talists, and had peculiar facilities for placing bonds. Does
it not occur to you that, if Mr. Elaine had meant this, it
would have been the most natural thing for him to say so?
But he did not say so. He did say something else. I
expressed the opinion that Speaker Elaine meant to point
to the exercise of his official power as the channel of his
usefulness. I think this, for the simple reason that this
was the thing, and the only thing, he did point at in two
letters written on one day, requesting that Mr. Caldwell
be told of it, and at the same time repeating his urgent
demand for a share in Mr. Cald well's interest. On which
side do we find the evidence, the only evidence there is—
on yours or on mine?
2. You say this was, after all, a very innocent matter,
for "it is one of the most gratifying things in life to a man
charged with legislative duties to encounter a person to
whom he has fairly rendered a service, " and to mention it
to him, and that it is the "acme of uncharitableness " to
see anything wrong in it. Very well. Let me adopt one
of your illustrations. You meet an old soldier and say:
"My old friend, I have worked to get you your pension,
and did get it for you. It has given me great pleasure."
This is virtuous and pleasant. But how would it be if
you said: " My old friend, I got your pension for you, and
now I want twenty per cent, of it"? When the Speaker
says to a railroad man: "I rendered you and your road
in a perfectly proper way a great favor, and I am glad I
did it, " that is one thing. But when the Speaker says to
a railroad man: " I did you such and such a service by the
exercise of my power, and now I want you to give me a
valuable interest in your enterprise; I know I am not going
to be a deadhead in it, and I see various channels in which
I can be useful" — is not that quite another thing? But
that is just what Mr. Elaine did.
278 The Writings of [1884
3. You say it is not true that when Mr. Elaine read
the Mulligan letters in the House the order in which he
read them tended to create the least difficulty in under
standing them. What is the fact? He read those of
October 4th first, and then one of July 2d, and then the
one of June 29th, which contained the "deadhead " and the
"channels of usefulness, " thus just reversing the order of
time and connection. Did he put the cart before the
horse to make the thing intelligible?
4. You say that the charge of falsehood as to Mr.
Elaine's solemn declaration before the House that the
Little Rock road derived all its value from the State of
Arkansas, and not from Congress, is unfounded. What
are the facts? That Mr. Elaine made that statement
with reference, to use his own words, "to the question
of propriety involved in a Member of Congress holding
an investment of this kind," you cannot deny. The
object of the statement confessedly was to convey the
impression that the House, over which Speaker Elaine
presided, had no power over that land-grant road or its
interests and values, and that his owning or his asking for
an interest in it while he was Speaker was a proper and
harmless thing. Now, Mr. Elaine knew perfectly well
that the original grants were made nominally to States,
but really for specific lines. So in this case. The original
Act of February, 1853, granted land to Arkansas and
Mississippi "to aid in the construction of a railroad from
a point upon the Mississippi river opposite the mouth of
the Ohio river, via Little Rock, to the Texas boundary,
near Fulton, in Arkansas, with branches to Fort Smith and
the Mississippi river. " Mr. Elaine knew further that the
very bill referred to in his two letters of October 4th, by
promoting the passage of which he had done Mr. Caldwell
"a great favor," was "an act to extend the time for the
Little Rock and Fort Smith Railway Company to complete
1884] Carl Schurz 279
the first section of twenty miles of said road, " thus keep
ing the land grant for the benefit of that road alive by Con
gressional action beyond the time originally conditioned.
He knew further that in addition to this, Congress had in
1872 passed an act relieving the Little Rock road of
certain restrictions concerning the sale of granted lands
which had been imposed in 1869. And now I ask you,
Senator, whether in the face of all these acts of Congres
sional legislation, Mr. Blaine's solemn statement before the
House of Representatives, by which he tried to whitewash
himself — that "the company derived its life franchise and
value wholly from the State," and that "the Little Rock
road derived all that it had from the State of Arkansas,
and not from Congress" and that the company was "amen
able and answerable to the State and not in any sense to
Congress, " was anything else than a deliberate, unblushing
untruth, known by him to be such?
You also deny that when Mr. Blaine, on the same solemn
occasion, declared he had never received any Fort Smith
bonds, "except at precisely the same rate that others
paid," he said what was not true. Again, what are the
facts? Mr. Blaine's words before the House of Repre
sentatives were these:
In common with hundreds of other people in New England
and other parts of the country, / bought some of these bonds —
not a very large amount — paying for them at precisely the
same rates that others paid. I never heard, and do not believe,
that the Little Rock Company ever parted with a bond to any
person except at the regular price fixed for their sale. Instead
of receiving bonds of the Little Rock and Fort Smith road as
a gratuity, / never had one except at the regular market price.
When Mr. Blaine said this to the House of Represen
tatives on April 24, 1876, before the Mulligan papers
280 The Writings of [1884
became public, he knew, but the public did then not know,
that he had received large quantities of bonds upon the
following contract :
BOSTON, Sept. 5, 1869.
Whereas, I have this day entered into agreements with A.
6 P. Coburn, and sundry other parties resident in Maine, to
deliver to them certain specified amounts of the common
stock, preferred stock and first-mortage bonds of the Little
Rock and Fort Smith Railroad Company, upon said parties
paying to me the aggregate sum of $130,000, which several
agreements are witnessed by J. G. Elaine, and delivered to
said parties by said Elaine:
Now, this agreement witnesses, that upon the due fulfilment
of the several contracts referred to, by the payment of the
$130,000, and for other valuable considerations, the receipt
of which is acknowledged, I hereby agree to deliver to J. G.
Elaine or order, as the same come into my hands as assignee of
the contract for building the Little Rock and Fort Smith
Railroad the following securities, namely : Of the land bonds,
7 per cents., $130,000; of the first-mortgage bonds, gold, 6's,
$32,500. And these $130,000 of land bonds and $32,500 of
first-mortgage bonds thus agreed to be delivered to said Elaine
are over and above the securities agreed to be delivered by
Warren Fisher, Jr., assignee, to the parties making the con
tracts, which parties with the several amounts to be paid by
each and the securities to be received by each, are named in a
memorandum on the next page of this sheet.
And it is further agreed that, in the event of any one of
said parties failing to pay the amount stipulated, then the
amount of securities to be delivered to said Elaine under this
agreement shall be reduced in the same proportion that the
deficit of payment bears to the aggregate amount agreed to
be paid.
WARREN FISHER, Jr., Assignee.
That this contract was carried out appears from a
memorandum in Mr. Elaine's own handwriting produced
i884] Carl Schurz 281
by Mr. Mulligan before the Investigating Committee in
Mr. Elaine's presence without a word of objection from
him as to its correctness. And in the face of this contract,
and of the fact that large quantities of Little Rock bonds
went to Mr. Elaine, according to the memorandum, with
out any payment on his part, as a gratuity or commis
sion for Little Rock securities passing to A. & P. Coburn
and other parties from Mr. Fisher, Mr. Elaine had the
hardihood to say that the "Little Rock Company never
parted with a bond to any one except at the regular price
fixed for their sale/' and that he himself "never had one
except at the regular market price. " In both these cases
Mr. Elaine evidently said what was not true ; he knew it
to be untrue when he said it, and he said it with the ob
vious intent to deceive the House of Representatives and
the "44,000,000 of his countrymen" whom Mr. Elaine
"took into his confidence." How do you call this? I
know how you would have called it before Mr. Elaine's
nomination, but that nomination seems to have had
a strangely confusing effect upon party men's notions
as to public morals. To call it "brilliant audacity in
the handling of truth," may suit the vocabulary of the
modern era better.
5. You say that I lay too much stress upon Mr.
Elaine's energetic protest against "the prying into his
private affairs" ; that I forget the circumstances; that Mr.
Elaine was then a candidate for the Presidency; that the
inquiry was instituted by his Democratic opponents, etc.
Do you mean to suggest that a public man in high station,
whose official integrity is seriously questioned, should ac
cept and facilitate investigation only by his party friends?
You will certainly not deny that Mr. Elaine had strong
friends upon that committee. But a public man of a high
sense of honor, rather than submit to continued suspicion,
will invite investigation by his opponents, not try to
282 The Writings of [1884
baffle it. Feeling himself innocent, he will throw wide
open the doors of knowledge, the wider the better. He will
not fear the appearance of suspicious circumstances, for
he will be ready and eager to explain them. He will not
increase and justify suspicion by concealment. Only the
guilty will rest under suspicion, because he fears exposure
and conviction. The character of the things Mr. Blaine
succeeded in covering up we are left to infer from the
character of those which came out against his remon
strance. You think George Washington would have
raved with anger if his "private correspondence" had
been inquired into by a committee of Tories? Neither
you nor I know how that would have been. But of
one thing I am very sure — in Washington's "private
correspondence" nothing would have been found in
the remotest degree resembling the Mulligan letters.
6. You say that Mr. Blaine 's offenses have not been
"condoned," but that he has been "triumphantly ac
quitted"; that this has been done by the governor and
the legislature of Maine sending him to the Senate, by
his appointment to the Cabinet and by his nomination for
the Presidency. Let us see. Did these events in the
least change the facts in Mr. Blaine's record? Can it be
said after these events that Mr. Blaine did not write the
Mulligan letters, that he did not make the false state
ments before the House, that he did not protest and
struggle against inquiry into what he called his "private
business"? Of course not. Did they change in any
sense the character of those facts ? Certainly not. What,
then, did they effect? They showed only that some peo
ple, when they bestowed public honors upon Mr. Blaine,
either did not know these facts or chose to overlook them
for party reasons, or regarded them as compatible with the
standard according to which, in their opinion, public
honors should be bestowed. But does this relieve other
1884] Carl Schurz 283
people of their duty as citizens to form a conscientious
judgment upon these same things, and to vote accordingly?
I wonder whether you would apply your triumphant-
acquittal rule with equal readiness to other cases. I am
informed that your opinion of General Butler has long
been quite unfavorable. General Butler was elected to
the governorship of Massachusetts two years ago. He
has been nominated for the Presidency by Greenbackers
and Anti-monopolists. Did that change in any way the
facts constituting his record? Did it change your opinion
of those facts? Were that election and these nominations,
in your opinion, a "triumphant acquittal"? The mere
statement of the proposition is sufficient to show the
absurdity of it.
As to Mr. Blame's case, the generality of American
citizens are now for the first time called upon to declare
whether his public record is regarded by them as com
patible with the standard according to which the American
people are willing to bestow the highest honor and trust
in this Republic. If the American people declare that
it is, then our public men, great and small, will have
learned that they may work in their "various channels
of usefulness" to make themselves rich, with the same
spirit of enterprise and the same brilliant audacity in the
handling of facts which they will have been taught to
admire in the model set up for them without fear of en
dangering their preferment in the highest places. What
the consequent effects of this upon the future of the Re
public are likely to be, I have endeavored to set forth in
my Brooklyn speech. Of the effect which Mr. Blaine's
mere nomination has already produced, your way of de
fending him furnishes, I regret to say, an instructive
example.
7. You are greatly mistaken when you "take it for
granted that what Mr. Schurz has not said in this speech
284 The Writings of [1884
against the personal honesty of Mr. Elaine is not worth
saying." There are many more facts in Mr. Elaine's
record which just begin to form the subject of popular
discussion, and which may in a most urgent manner call
for your attention before the end of this campaign. I
confined myself carefully to a few representative points
which rested upon Mr. Elaine's own letters, speeches and
oral testimony alone. Neither can I accept the compli
ment that my Brooklyn speech is an unusual exhibition of
"clear and skillful statement." Whatever strength that
speech possesses consists simply in the circumstance that
it is the sober truth, plainly spoken. And just there is
your trouble.
TO ALBERT H. WALKER
NEW YORK, Sept. 2, 1884.
Private.
I can say only a few words in reply to your kind letter,
as I am very much occupied, being on the point of leaving
for a long Western trip.
1. The letters of June 29th and October 4th do actu
ally belong together. They treat of the same subject. The
letters of October 4th are only the upshot of Mr. Blame's
impatience at Caldwell's long hesitancy. He wanted to
stir him up by putting before him a strong inducement for
joining interests with him. This seems to me perfectly
clear. No other explanation has, as far as I have heard,
the least ground to stand upon.
2. As to Mr. Elaine's statements to the House, he
wanted to make the House and the country believe that
his having an interest in the Little Rock road was not
improper, because the interests of the road did not in any
way depend upon Congressional action, and, secondly,
that he had not been in any sense favored by the Little
1884] Carl Schurz 285
Rock people in obtaining the bonds. Even if it could be
made out that these statements were technically correct,
they would still remain actually false. A man under such
circumstances has no right to shield himself by mere
technicalities. But his statements were technically as
false as they were actually. The subsequent miscarriage
of the speculation did not in the least degree change its
character. His arrangement with Fisher was intended to
be an extremely advantageous one to him. He actually
did get the bonds without paying for them.
3. As to Mr. Elaine's conduct before the Investigat
ing Committee, his protests against any inquiry into his
"private business, " being the business transactions of the
Speaker of the House with land-grant railroads — etc., etc.,
that is largely a question as to what standard we apply
to such things. In my opinion no man of a high sense
of official honor will for a moment think of conducting
himself as Mr. Elaine did.
Pardon these hasty, offhand remarks.
TO R. R. BOWKER
DAYTON, O., Sept. 21, 1884.
Your letter of the i6th reached me yesterday. I had
one from Mr. [George Fred.] Williams of Boston at the
same time. I wrote him that as to "making a new speech "
for circulation as a campaign document, I am saying new
things all the time but, as I am travelling 100 to 150 miles
a day and am constantly surrounded by crowds of people,
I have not time to sit down and write out a new argument.
You must go on disseminating my Brooklyn speech, which
after all contains the whole case. You may supplement
it with my answer to Hoar, the new Mulligan letters and
such other things as you can pick up. )
286 The Writings of [1884
You intimated that something more was to come out
about Elaine. How is that?
I am having arrangements made for meetings in Ohio
from October 6th to i oth inclusive. On the 1 1 th I shall then
speak once more at Chicago, and on the I3th I can be at
Buffalo, speaking at a number of places along the New York
Central road, to be at New York again on Sunday, October
I9th. These meetings might now be arranged for. Other
meetings in New York and those in Connecticut and New
Jersey can be fixed upon afterwards. It will be time when
I am in New York, from September 28th to October 4th.
But am I to remain the only Independent speaker in the
field? Is there no one to take a part of the burden? We
have plenty of able men in Boston and New York. They
are needed here, for the State of Ohio is in doubt,
and the October election may decide the whole campaign.
Is nobody available? I must say that I begin to feel a
little lonesome in this struggle. Where is Curtis? And
where are the able speakers from Massachusetts? They
ought all to be here, now or as soon as possible, before the
October election. I cannot do it all alone.
P. S. There is a great demand for the German edition
of my Brooklyn speech in this State. Send as many as
you can raise.
TO JAMES BRYCE
NEW YORK, Nov. 9, 1884.
As to the double-chamber system in our Constitutions,
Federal and State, it may be said not to be a subject of
discussion at all in this country. It is generally looked
upon as a natural — I might say as a matter of course-
part of our political arrangements, so much so, indeed,
that a proposition to abolish it, even when coming from
a respectable quarter, would scarcely find any serious
i884] Carl Schurz 287
consideration. On the whole I think the popular judg
ment is right in this respect. The double-chamber system,
as we have it in our State legislatures, was designed
principally to prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation ;
and this it has done and is doing — of course not always, but
in a sufficient measure to keep itself in favor with the
people. Now and then a senate is criticized as assuming
airs or as grasping for power, and that sort of thing—
sometimes, as in the case of the Senate of the United
States, not unjustly; but these things have never gone
so far as to make the system, as such, in any degree
obnoxious or unpopular, or to affect the general apprecia
tion of its usefulness. It may also be said that the upper
houses, in Congress as well as in State legislatures, are
usually composed of a class of men somewhat superior
to those in the lower houses. The general average is
usually higher. Moreover, as you are aware, the people
of the United States have long been accustomed to look
to the Senate at Washington for thorough debates on the
public questions most interesting to them, and during the
larger part of our history the American people have re
garded the Senate as an institution they had reason to
be proud of. Originally, when the Constitution of the
United States was formed, the institution of the Senate
very naturally suggested itself as the representation of the
States ; but I have no doubt, even if the historic conception
of the sovereignty or the rights of the several States were
ever so much weakened, the practical value of the Senate
as the upper house of the National Legislature would
remain very much the same in popular estimation. And
that practical value is the only point considered here, as
our upper houses do not represent privileged classes or
separate interests, but are justly looked upon without
any jealousy or apprehension as mere parts, but useful
parts, of the legislative machinery. The opinions here
288 The Writings of [1884
expressed are not only my own, but, I am confident, those
of the American people generally.
TO GROVER CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Nov. 15, 1884.
My dear Sir : I put off my congratulations until all un
certainty was over, but I need scarcely assure you that they
are none the less sincere and cordial. I congratulate you
not only on your personal success, but on the great oppor
tunities before you to render the country services of ines
timable value. You will have it largely in your power to
relieve the people of the morbid apprehensions that the
passage of the Government from one party to another in
volves all the perilous chances of a great revolution. You
can lift party politics up to a higher plane by striking the
decisive blow at the spoils system. You can extend and
perpetuate the reform of the civil service. You can thus
bring about a state of things in which public questions
can once more be discussed on their own merits. By all
this you can inspire the American people with greater
confidence in their institutions and in their future than
they have felt for a long time. And it cannot but be
flattering to you to know that there are a great many
people who believe not only that you can, but that you
will do these things.
In order to accomplish them you will no doubt have to
go through very hard struggles with that element whose
first impulse after a victory is to reach for the spoils. I
know how hard such a struggle is, for I have witnessed
some of it myself. The onset on you will probably be
fiercer than any we have seen in our generation. The
character, and consequently the fate, of your Administra
tion is not unlikely to be determined at the start, within
1884] Carl Schurz 289
the first three months, perhaps in the first thirty days
after your inauguration. The crucial test will not be the
tariff question; for that, I am confident, will settle itself
more easily than many people now suppose. But, it is
the civil service question which will present itself for
decision at once, and unless decided rightly, will continue
to harass you without ceasing. If you decide it rightly
and firmly stick to the decision, it will stay decided, and
your Administration will mark one of the most import
ant turning-points in our political development, — so im
portant indeed, and so salutary in its significance that
to stand in history identified with it might satisfy the
ambition of any man. A failure would of course be
all the more deplorable as opportunities so great occur
but rarely.
Will you pardon me for speaking thus freely in a letter
of congratulation? Having the fullest confidence in your
high purposes I thought you would not take it amiss. You
can easily understand that I should feel a very deep
interest in your success, and I need scarcely say that I
most heartily wish your Administration may become the
greatest possible honor to yourself and the greatest possible
blessing to our country. If I can serve you in any way as
a private citizen I shall be glad to do so. From this time
on you will be approached by few men who can candidly
say that they do not want from you something or other
for themselves or their friends. As one of these few I
might sometimes find occasion to speak to you perhaps
more frankly than others differently interested, and to
venture now and then upon a suggestion or the communi
cation of some piece of experience not likely to come from
those usually pressing around men in power. I would do
this, of course, only if agreeable to you and without any
inclination to intrude. And I wish to assure you also
that whatever may come from me in this way may be
VOL. IV.— Ip
290 The Writings of [1884
received under all circumstances without the least sense of
obligation on your part.
Again offering to you my cordial good wishes, I remain
Very truly yours.
Governor GROVER CLEVELAND.
TO GEORGE FRED. WILLIAMS
no W. 34TH ST., NEW YORK, Nov. 16, 1884.
Well, we may say that we have fought a good fight and
done the country some service which we have reason to be
proud of. The Cleveland majority in this State has at
last been confirmed by the official canvass in the counties,
and this morning even the Tribune gave up its crazy
pranks and confessed its defeat. To-day I thought it
time at last to mail my congratulations to Cleveland, the
last shadow of danger of a setback having vanished.
Now we shall have to hold up his arms in well-doing to
the best of our ability. We must not permit him to see
and hear nothing but the talk of the officeseekers and
their friends who from this time on will constantly press
around and upon him.
There is one thing I would strongly recommend to you
and our friends in Massachusetts generally. Try to get
hold of Patrick Collins and other Democratic Congressmen
from your State, to indoctrinate them as much as possible
with sound civil service reform principles, and to make
them understand that any failure in this respect would
quickly bring about a reaction and sweep them out of
power again. They should be made to see that of all
things this is the one that cannot be trifled with. — Cor
dially your friend.
1884] Carl Schurz 291
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WILMINGTON, DEL., Nov. 17, 1884.
My dear Schurz: The canvass just ended has been so
critical, and the part you have borne in it so honorable and
important that I want to say so to you with a great deal of
emphasis. Ever since I came to know you in the Senate my
respect for your character and admiration for your abilities
have grown apace. There has been a great deal to wound you
in the malign assaults of those who cannot appreciate the
true intent of your action; and, naturally, bitter resentment
from those whose selfish and dangerous plans you have so
boldly exposed and overthrown, so that a tribute of apprecia
tive and grateful acknowledgment from a man who ardently
loves this country and aspires to serve it worthily may not
unpleasantly be mingled in your cup.
In his own measure and mode each of us has helped to guard
the republican institutions from peril and degradation, and
I trust your hands may be strengthened by official power to
make the victory you have so powerfully assisted, fruitful
of good results.
I know but little personally of the President-elect. Heaven
grant that he may comprehend and fulfil the needs of the hour.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, Nov. 21, 1884.
I thank you most sincerely for your cordial letter of the
1 7th. I need not tell you how I value your good opinion.
The approval and esteem of good, patriotic men is after
all, next to the accomplishment of good ends, the best
reward offered by public life. The attacks you mention
which I had to endure in the late campaign were indeed
cruel enough. Of course, I have seen a good deal of that
sort of thing before; but it was a novel experience to be
vilified most meanly and maliciously by a paper which
292 The Writings of [1884
pretended to be on the side of the same candidate whose
election I advocated. Well, when we go forth to fight
for a good cause, we must also be willing to suffer for it.
Words like yours, my dear friend, are well calculated to
make me forget it all.
We have all done our duty in this important contest,
and now let us hope that our success will be a blessing to
the country. Personally, I know no more of the President
elect than you do; but I believe that he is a thoroughly
honorable and patriotic man, and also a man of courage.
It is generally assumed that he will call you to the head of
the Cabinet, and as it would be the natural thing to do, I
expect he will. A conversation I had with him across a
dinner table, a little more than a fortnight before the
election, was calculated to strengthen that belief. I
hope, when the summons comes to you, you will not
hesitate to accept at once. I say this, knowing that it
will be a sacrifice, for it would no doubt be much pleasanter
to you to stay in the Senate. But you are a necessity
to the coming Administration as a member of it. Mr.
Cleveland will go into power, undoubtedly with the best
intentions, but without any experience of National
politics and without much knowledge of persons, and I
hope he will consult you early. The character of the
Cabinet will be of greater importance than it has been at
any time during the past twenty years, and the President
should have at his disposal for selection for it the best
material there is in the successful party; and he should
have the advice of the very best of it at the first moment
he begins to move. The only influence I shall be able to
exercise will be that of an independent volunteer.
I wrote a letter to Mr. Cleveland a few days ago, con
gratulating him upon his success, telling him what I
hoped his Administration would be, and adding that if I
could serve him as a private citizen, I should be glad to do
1884] Carl Schurz 293
so, especially by venturing an occasional word of sugges
tion, if acceptable to him, a privilege which I should value.
I may, therefore, possibly have some further correspon
dence with him, and if so I shall always say to him frankly
what I think as to what would best serve the public
interest.
TO GEORGE FRED. WILLIAMS
no W. 34TH ST., NEW YORK, Nov. 23, 1884.
Your kind letter of the igih is in my hands. I must say
that I do not attach [as] much importance to the projected
letter to Governor Cleveland as those do who first moved
it, nor as those who oppose it. I do not see how it can
do any harm, nor do I think it will do much good, except
in one respect. It says that those who ask for office as a
reward for services rendered during the campaign thereby
cease to represent the original principles and aims of the
Independent movement. This I think is a proper dec
laration, and also a useful advertisement. I regret to say
there are some Independents who, on the strength of the
support they have given Mr. Cleveland during the
campaign, are fishing for places. I know it, for some of
them have written to me asking me for recommendations.
This is a very bad thing which should be discountenanced,
and I think a public declaration like the one in the pro
jected address would be calculated to stop it. I do not
think anything else would have the same effect.
This, you will observe, refers only to the asking for office
as a reward for services rendered, leaving open all the
other points you refer to, for consideration when occasion
happens. It is rather unfortunate that the matter of the
address has got into the papers prematurely. I hope,
however, it will be finally disposed of in a manner satis
factory to all our friends.
294 The Writings of [1884
Do you not think Elaine has dug his grave deep by his
serenade speech? There are, I understand, a good many
Republicans here who voted for him and are now heartily
glad he is defeated. — Cordially yours.
TO GEORGE FRED. WILLIAMS
NEW YORK, Nov. 26, 1884.
Your letter of the 24th did not alarm me at all. I read
it with great interest and thank you for it. Your first
argument, that the address ''reflects upon our constitu
ency, " and that if there is any reason for apprehension as
to some of our people, Mr. Cleveland should be cautioned
privately, certainly deserves consideration — although I
am not quite as sure as you seem to be, that the public
would take it as a reflection. It is a very unfortunate
circumstance that by the indiscretion of somebody in
Wisconsin the thing got into the papers, and that, if
there is any mischief, that mischief is already done. I
did not know that Bowker was going to Boston and have
not seen him since his return. No meeting of the Com
mittee has been called since he got back, as far as I know.
The second branch of your argument referring to the
question whether office should be accepted if Cleveland
offers it, you seem to have pointed at me personally. I
will give you my opinion quite frankly. You are aware
that almost the whole Independent press is opposed to
acceptance. You have probably seen the articles in the
Evening Post, Nation and in the Boston Herald. I admit
that the arguments produced there are not all correct and
on the whole not conclusive. There is undoubtedly great
force in what you say. It would perhaps be well to have
the matter openly and thoroughly discussed. If Mr.
Cleveland should tell the Independents that he needed one
1884] Carl Schurz 295
of them in his Cabinet to carry out his reform policy, and
that he could not well get along without such help, it
is questionable whether the Independents would have a
right to say that it would be improper for any one of their
number to respond to the summons. However, I do not
think this is likely to be the case. But, as you have applied
the argument to me personally, I am bound to add, that
such a summons should not come to me. The reason is a
very simple one. My circumstances do not permit me
to go into official life again. However willing to do the
work and to take the responsibility, I could not bear the
expense incidental to official dignity. Public life has
kept me poor, I am growing old and I have to think of
my family. And as we are conversing here in friendly
confidence, I may point out to you a lesson to be found
in this circumstance. You are young, public spirited,
ardent and full of talent. Do not go into public life in a
manner seriously interfering with your private pursuits
until you are, in the matter of fortune, measurably in
dependent — of course, great emergencies always excepted.
I have made that mistake and have to suffer from the
consequences.
But my inability to accept office does not touch the
general question which may present itself to somebody
else to be decided upon its general merits. Of course,
I cannot enter into the public discussion of it, because my
name has already been drawn into the controversy in the
papers — altogether too much.
If there should be any misunderstanding here as to what
you have said about our National Committee, I shall take
very great pleasure in rectifying it as soon as the first
opportunity presents itself. And finally I want to assure
you that I am always sincerely glad to hear from you,
and that your letters will never be too long nor too
many. — Your friend.
296 The Writings of [1884
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
no W. 34TH ST., NEW YORK, Dec. 2, 1884.
I am very much disquieted by a rumor which has
found its way to me. It is that you did not consider
yourself rich enough to bear the expenses of the office of
Secretary of State and would therefore hesitate to accept
the offer which, I am sure, will come, if it has not come
already. I fervently hope this is not so — that is to say,
I hope you are rich enough, or, if you unfortunately are
not, this deplorable circumstance will not stand in the
way of your entering the Cabinet. In such a case, why
should you not be Secretary of the Treasury? The
Treasury is really the most influential office in the Govern
ment, while the position is far less expensive ; and I know
of no man in America available for that position, who at
the head of that Department would so universally and
unconditionally command the confidence of the country,
and especially of the legitimate business interests, as you
would. In that position you would just as much be the
leading man in the Cabinet as in the Secretaryship of
State. And possibly you might do still more good there.
At any rate, I trust there is nothing to make you hesitate
in accepting Mr. Cleveland's invitation to become a mem
ber of his Administration. You are absolutely needed
there, and I have the best reason for saying that you will
be the first man to be called upon as the new President's
confidential adviser in getting up his official family, and
that he will rely more on you than on anybody else. I
need not tell you how profoundly anxious I am that our
victory should bear the best possible fruit for the country,
and that, to this end, the Administration should get
started right. In fact, the first start may be decisive of
its character and ultimate success.
When will you be in New York again? I should be glad
to talk with you about a great many things.
1884] Carl Schurz 297
FROM GROVER CLEVELAND
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
ALBANY, Dec. 6, 1884.
My dear Sir: I received a most gratifying letter from you
some time ago. Ever since its receipt I have had an idea,
held in a sort of indefinite thoughtless way, that we should
meet, and that then I might acknowledge all your considera
tion and kindness to me.
But you have suggested, I am informed, difficulties in the
way of your coming to me which I fully appreciate; and
those not less insurmountable seem to prevent my coming
to you.
You may be sure that I should be most glad to hear your
views at length, in this time of anxiety. I wish I might ask
you to write to me as to one whose desire is to merit the good
opinion of the men who have trusted him, but one who knows
little of what awaits him in his new sphere of duty.
Yours sincerely,
GROVER CLEVELAND.
Hon. CARL SCHURZ.
TO GROVER CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Dec. 10, 1884.
My dear Sir: I gladly respond to your very kind
invitation to express to you my views "at length," and
I do so not without a strong feeling of responsibility. The
anxiety of which you speak, I fully understand and share.
Permit me first a few remarks on the general aspect of the
situation.
I said in my letter of November I5th that in my opinion
the character and fate of your Administration would be
determined by its treatment of the civil service question.
In repeating this I do not underestimate the importance
of other subjects of public interest with which you will
come into contact. But they are mostly subject to
298 The Writings of [1884
legislative action while the practical treatment of the civil
service question is the business of the Executive and is,
aside from the ordinary routine, likely to be its principal
business during the first eight or nine months of the new
Administration. The passage of the Government from
one party to another is the decisive crisis of administra
tive reform. If it weathers that crisis successfully, it will
live. If the American people have now a change of party
in power in which the public interest is the only ruling
motive and consideration, an example is set which will
have almost the force of law to govern similar events in
the future. The man who carries this through will be
one of the greatest benefactors of the American people,
and you have the opportunity of being that man.
In serving this great end you will at the same time do
the best service to your party. There is a new confused
migration of political forces going on. They are footloose
and restless. Their party allegiance restrains them very
little. Both parties, the Republican as well as the Demo
cratic, have come out of the last campaign in a shape
very different from that in which we knew them before.
The Democratic party won under the banner of reform,
aided by the most determined reform-elements coming
from the Republican side. If the Democratic party,
when in power, should drop that standard for the purpose
of winning back the forces that strayed from it in the late
contest, it would not fully succeed in accomplishing that
purpose, while losing all its moral strength and also the
support of the auxiliary forces which made its victory
possible. The party now come to power must be a
reform-party in order to live, for it is certain that the
opposition, as long as out of power, will be the most watch
ful and vociferous advocate of reform ever seen. The
Democrats are not a majority party now. But they can
become a majority party if their policy satisfies those
1884] Carl Schurz 299
Independents and discontented Republicans who have
been for some time longing for a new reform-party, that
a new party is not needed. In other words, the Demo
cratic party will have to be, in that sense, the new party
itself. Then it will be the party of the future and as
such in a situation to render very valuable service to
the country.
Your own position is essentially the same. Your
strength with the people consists in your character and
reputation as a reformer, that is to say as a man whose
honest purpose it is to put the administrative part of the
Government upon a sound business basis. This is what
the best part of the people expect you will do. If you
succeed in this, your Administration will be voted a
general success, although there may be mishaps in other
directions. If you fail in this, your Administration will be
judged generally a failure. In this one respect you will
be closely watched by millions of eyes, and criticism will
be sharp, for your past career and your professions of high
principle have led the people to expect so much in this
direction that every mistake of importance will be liable
to be construed as a falling away from your original
purpose.
This is one of the disadvantages of having started with a
superior reputation. Whenever Arthur did a creditable
thing, people would say : "He is after all a better man than
we thought he was. " If you should do things not up to
the mark, people will be apt to say: "He is after all not as
good as we thought he would turn out to be. " And this
is part of the material out of which public opinion is made.
And public opinion is an important factor, especially when
an Administration has to do things for the accomplishment
of which it needs the support of public sentiment against
a portion of its own party. That you will have a struggle
with the spoils hunters in the Democratic party you are
300 The Writings of [1884
no doubt prepared for; and it will be not only with the
spoils hunters themselves but with a good many otherwise
well-meaning people who think that reform is an excellent
thing in theory but should not be carried too much into
practice. Your purpose, as I understand it, is, in the first
place, faithfully to execute the civil service law in letter
and spirit, and secondly, as to the offices not under the
civil service law, to make no removals except for "cause,"
that cause including cases of the abuse of official position
for partisan purposes, and to be governed in your appoint
ments by the interests of the service. This being in its
nature executive business, you will have to bear the sole
responsibility for it. The opposition to this policy on the
part of officeseekers and dealers in patronage, especially
Members of Congress, will therefore turn against you, and
it can be disarmed only by a decided attitude on the part
of the Administration, supported by public opinion, as
it will be, if consistent.
If the character of this struggle depended upon your
own fidelity and courage alone, I should feel no anxiety
at all. But it does not. Neither does it depend upon the
mere laying down by the President of certain principles
of action. It depends upon the fidelity and energy with
which those principles are carried out by the heads of the
several Departments. I know from personal experience
how the mill works, and that experience has convinced me
that no President, however firm and courageous he may
be, can succeed in the fight for systematic administrative
reform, if he has to carry on the fight against his own
Cabinet. More than that : he cannot succeed unless the
Cabinet, at least the heads of the principal Departments,
are substantially of the same mind with him and support
him in good faith and with constant energy.
The problem, I repeat, cannot be disposed of by the
mere proclamation of a certain policy. It presents itself
1884] Carl Schurz 301
in the shape of a multitude of individual cases, but few
of which the President will be able to examine himself.
A very large number of them, especially in the Post-Office
Department, do not come before him at all. In most of
the cases which do come before him, he will have to trust
the heads of the respective Departments for the informa
tion on which he is to act, for the reasons why this man
should be removed and the other man should be appointed,
while he himself has to bear the responsibility. Now, my
experience is that the great danger of a reform Adminis
tration consist sin the inclination of those engaged in it
to admit exceptions to their rules. As soon as this is
done every case will be represented as an exceptional one
upon all sorts of plausible pretexts ; that by this removal or
that appointment the party will be greatly strengthened
in this or that locality, or the favor of this or that powerful
interest can be propitiated, etc., etc. As these exceptions
accumulate, the character and credit of the Administra
tion go down and down until finally there is little left but
the original good intentions.
In one word, if you want to have a reform Adminis
tration, you must have, at least at the head of the three
great "patronage" Departments, the Treasury, the Post-
Office and the Interior, men who understand reform as you
do, who believe in it as you do, who are willing to fight for
it as 'you are and who will not be swerved from their
purpose by any political seduction, even if they should be
prospective candidates for the Presidency — the severest
trial to which the political virtue of a public man can be
exposed. At least they should not be much below this
standard; for if your Department-Chiefs look upon your
reform policy as a mere amiable hobby to be humored for
a while, and if they say to the politicians wanting patron
age: "We should be glad to accommodate you, but you
know the President has some singular notions in his head,
302 The Writings of [1884
and you must be patient" — your reform policy is doomed.
You must be able absolutely to depend upon them as to
their governing motives as well as their ability practically
to deal with such things, and this requirement is most
imperative just at the start, for then the pressure and the
struggle will be severest and the character of your Ad
ministration will then virtually be determined.
On this point I cannot express myself too strongly, for
I know from experience what I am speaking of. Neither
will this matter admit of much experimenting. If you
make any serious mistake in your first choice for the
Cabinet, the consequences will make themselves felt
immediately, for the call for decisive action is upon you
at the very beginning. And, moreover, you will not find
it as easy as might be imagined to get rid of a man who is
once in your Cabinet.
There is another general point of view which I would
commend to your consideration. It can hardly be ex
pected that the starting of a new Administration should
pass off entirely without accidental blunders. They will
not hurt you much if you have the confidence of the coun
try to such an extent that an occasional mistake will be
ascribed to accident rather than to questionable motives.
It must not be forgotten that you are a comparatively
new man on the National field, not yet as well known and
as confidentially trusted elsewhere as you are in this
State. In this respect the impression produced by the
general character of your Cabinet will be of great import
ance to you. It may win and strengthen confidence, or
it may start suspicion and distrust. Your party, too,
makes a sort of first appearance in the National Executive.
Much depends upon the manner of that appearance.
Your Cabinet will be its first introduction. Under such
circumstances, it seems to me, you should have in that
Cabinet only men well known to the American people,
1884] Carl Schurz 303
men of generally recognized standing and esteemed
character. There should be none among them about
whom any intelligent citizen would have occasion to ask:
' ' Who is this man ? Why was he selected for so important
a place?" For, when such questions can be asked, others
are certain to follow, such as these: "What are the in
fluences that may have induced the President to select
just him? Who are his friends, or what are the interests
behind this man that were so potent with the President?"
and so on. This would not be well; under existing cir
cumstances it might be positively harmful, for such im
pressions sometimes go deep and last long, and they might
endanger that confidence which you will need and which
upon your own merits you would be certain to win.
Another consideration which is looked upon as import
ant in the formation of a Cabinet is that of locality. Of
course, no one section of the country ought to be designedly
favored, but geographical reasons should after all not
stand too much in the way of more important ones.
The principal thing is the quality of the men. Of the
four members of Washington's Cabinet two were from
Virginia. In Jefferson's Cabinet there were for several
months three men from Massachusetts, two of whom he
kept. Grant's Cabinet had two men from Massachusetts
at the same time, and, if I remember rightly, five of the
seven members from States east of the Alleghany moun
tains. There is always some geographical grumble
which, however, lasts only a day or two, while, if there is a
well-founded grumble about the character or ability of a
Cabinet Minister appointed perhaps just to satisfy geo
graphical considerations, it lasts as long as he is in office.
There seem to be certain superstitious notions, that the
Secretary of the Navy should be from the seaboard, the
Secretary of the Treasury from New York, the Secretary
of the Interior from the West, etc., but such notions have
304 The Writings of [1884
really nothing in sound reason to support them and are
usually urged only to bolster up certain candidates for
the respective places. The only really important thing
is to get the right men.
On the whole, if I were in your place, I would not be in a
hurry. If by the middle of February you have finally
made up your mind as to who shall be in your Cabinet,
you will have done much better than a good many of your
predecessors, some of whom had to make up their Cabinets
in part after their inauguration. You certainly want
time to inform yourself and to look at the problem from
various points of view. I see from the papers that you
have consulted Mr. Bayard, as Mr. Stetson told me you
would, and I am glad of it, for it would be difficult to
find anywhere a better man to consult.
I hope you have not misunderstood what I said to Mr.
Stetson about the impracticability of my responding to
your wish that I should visit you at Albany. I assure
you it was not in any sense a question of pride with me,
but merely one of expediency. I have no doubt you, as
well as myself, would prefer to avoid the various interpre
tations which inevitably would follow such a visit. But I
scarcely need tell you that I shall always be most sincerely
glad to serve you with such suggestion or information
as may come from me, and I highly appreciate that
confidence on your part which calls them forth. There
are matters of detail which it might perhaps be more
convenient to talk than to write about, and I need not
add that if an interview can be arranged in a manner
not liable to the objections mentioned, I shall embrace
the opportunity with very great pleasure.
This letter has grown much longer than I intended ; but
you are partly at fault yourself, having called for an
expression of my views "at length." — Very sincerely
yours.
1885] Carl Schurz 305
TO GROVER CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Jan. 3, 1885.
Colonel Burt, who called on me this morning, said that
when he was at Albany a few days ago, you asked him
whether he knew how I liked your civil service letter. I
thought you would not be seriously in doubt as to my
opinion of that excellent document. Its merit has been
practically tested by the impression it produced. Your
friends are fully satisfied, especially as they remember
that in your public career performance has not only not
fallen short of promise but rather gone beyond it. And
your opponents find themselves obliged to recognize the
letter as a good thing and have nothing to say except that
you do not mean it or that the spoils-seekers will be too
strong for you. Of course there are grumblers among
those who want patronage to distribute or who want office
for themselves . After your inauguration their number will
be much larger than it now manifests itself, and they will
give you and the heads of Departments a great deal of
trouble. But that cannot be helped.
It has been noticed among civil service reformers that
your letter does not cover the question whether men in
office, who have been conspicuously efficient in the dis
charge of their duties and not liable to objection of any
kind, should not be reappointed upon the expiration of
their terms of office, irrespective of party affiliation. But
while I suppose you would seriously consider the propriety
of such reappointments when the time for action comes,
you have, in my opinion, wisely abstained from discuss
ing that question now. I think you said just enough on
this subject for the present, and you said it in the right
way too— simply announcing your determination to do
certain things instead of theorizing about them. You
may indeed be congratulated upon the success of your
VOL IV. — 20.
306 The Writings of [1885
first post-election utterance. It is in itself an event of
great importance.
But in spite of the favorable impression produced by it
on the Independents and those Republicans who, although
they did not vote for you, more or less sympathized with
us, there is still a drift of feeling prevalent among a great
many of them, which manifests itself in such things as the
following paragraph taken from the Boston Advertiser,
a paper which advocated your election quite heartily [quo
tation omitted].
I have found similar things in other papers. This in
dicates a lingering of the old distrust of all Democrats,
and a latent inclination to return to old political associa
tions — watching you, as you fight your battle, not without
some sympathy and hope, but after all from the standpoint
of a doubting and critical " opposition. " There would be
sound reason for this if there were any great divergence
between you and them as to the objects to be accomplished,
or if you were certain to be overborne by the adverse
influences in your party. But considering that your po
litical purposes and those of the Independents and liberal
Republicans are in the main the same, as I think they are,
and that you have the support or acquiescence of a strong
enough portion of the Democratic party to make success
appear at least possible, and that, moreover, in a certain
sense you will have to make the party of the future, this
attitude of critical opposition or expectancy is simply
calculated to prevent or at least delay the reorganization
of political forces and the concentration of energies for
harmonious effort which must take place to render that
success certain. These are the arguments I have been
using with my friends as far as I could reach them, to
make them understand that in the difficult struggles you
will have to go through for the accomplishment of our
common object, we should not stand by and wait to see
i88si Carl Schurz 307
how you will come out, but help you in every possible way
to come out right, by active and constant support and
cooperation, and to this end, instead of speaking of
critical opposition, identify ourselves with you as much
as may be necessary.
This view of the situation is gradually gaining ground,
but it is still far from being as generally accepted as it
should be. You can undoubtedly do more than anybody
else to draw the whole, or at least a large majority of this
important element, from its expectant and doubting posi
tion to rally it around your Administration and thus to
promote that active union of the best intelligence of the
South and of the North which the public interest demands.
You can do this, it seems to me, not only by forming a
Cabinet that will inspire confidence, but by telling the
country in your inaugural address specifically what you
mean when speaking of Democratic principles and a
Democratic policy as applied to present circumstances.
This, I believe, can be done in such a way as to explode a
good many of the specters which have been frightening
people so long, and to make those who substantially agree
with you concerning the public objects to be accomplished,
feel that the further maintenance of an attitude of doubtful
expectancy or critical opposition would on their part be
positively wrong as well as absurd.
If agreeable to you, I should be glad to submit to your
judgment my thoughts on this matter in greater detail.
I regret in this respect that, when you will visit this city,
as the newspapers say, in two or three weeks, I shall be
absent, to be gone from the I3th or I4th inst. until the
ist of March. Personal conversation on these things
would probably be more useful. But I apprehend, as you
are to leave Albany for Buffalo in a very few days, you
will in the meantime be too much occupied with the
winding up of your official business, to have leisure for
308 The Writings of
anything else. In that case nothing but correspondence
by letter will remain for an exchange of views, and I
shall then, if you desire it, write again when you will be
relieved of your governor's business and more at ease.
Wishing you a happy New Year, I am sincerely yours.
TO JOHN T. MORSE, JR.
no W. 34TH ST., Jan. 7, 1885.
I have received your kind note of yesterday — in fact,
I have been expecting some admonition of this kind for
some time. My engagements have indeed very seriously
interrupted my work, and I shall labor under the same
difficulty for several weeks longer, at least until about the
middle of March. I have written several chapters in the
rough, but there is so much more to be done that I have
no hope of completing the book1 this spring. Of course,
I look upon it, not as a hasty job, but as a very serious
task, and if I furnish you anything at all I want it to be
the best I can do. All I can say now is that, as I have
advanced in the work, my interest in it has very much
increased; that I want to complete it, and that I mean to
give my whole time to it as soon as the exigencies of my
situation permit. I can only add that I should have fin
ished it long ago, had I not been diverted from it by more
pressing duties, and that I hope soon to be able to take it
in hand again.
TO GEORGE W. FOLSOM2
no W. 34TH ST., Jan. 10, 1885.
Last night I received your kind letter of yesterday with
a check for $600 to refund my travelling expenses during
1 Henry Clay in the American Statesmen series, of which Mr. Morse
was the editor.
2 Treasurer of the Independent Republican organization.
1885] Carl Schurz 309
the campaign. I did not keep any detailed account of
my actual outlays on my campaign trips, as it was my
expectation to bear those expenses myself. Least of all
did I expect that the Committee would have any surplus
funds after the election. But since that is the case I do
not see why I should not permit at least a part of an outlay
of money to be refunded, which was really larger than I
could well afford.
The sum you send me, however, exceeds those outlays
considerably. According to my general expense account
during those two months I spent on my campaign journeys
about $450. My trips were generally rather long but in
those instances I had tickets from one place to another
presented to me. Now I want to have the satisfaction
of having made a little cash contribution to the campaign
in addition to my work. I therefore return the $600
check, and if you will send me one of $300 in its place, that
will about cover what I paid out in excess of what might
be considered my cash quota of the campaign expenses.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN1
Of all the great historic men of America Benjamin
Franklin was doubtless the greatest specific American.
Washington has been said to have much of the English
gentleman; Jefferson of the French philosopher — but
Franklin in all his ways of thinking and doing was the
genuine characteristic product of the new world. He was
the universal Yankee in ideal development; the very
apostle of restless, inquiring, independent, courageous,
prolific, versatile and genial common- sense ; the self-
made man in the greatest proportions — self-made in
1 A lecture written in 1884 and delivered in Charleston, S. C., Jan. 21,
1885, and in other cities, North and South.
3io The Writings of [1885
business, in morals, religion, science and statesmanship.
His has been one of the useful lives in history in two
respects: he not only did many things that were highly
beneficial to his generation, but no human being, high
or low, learned or ignorant, old or young, rich or poor,
can study that life without drawing some valuable les
son from it, not only general, but specific. Few men, if
any, have ever more effectually taught by precept and
example the true science of life; that is, the science of
virtue, of usefulness and of enjoyment. And among the
great men of history there is scarcely one who, of the
successes he achieved, owed more to himself and less to
the favor of circumstances.
He was born in Boston in 1706. His father was a soap
boiler and tallow chandler, respectable, but rich only in
the number of his children, of whom there were seventeen.
Little Ben got very scanty schooling, was apprenticed to
his brother as a printer, sold ballads on the streets com
posed by himself, wrote newspaper essays anonymously,
quarreled with his brother and ran off to Philadelphia
to seek his fortune when seventeen years old. At an
early age he had become a voracious reader, one of those
knights of the nocturnal tallow dip who surreptitiously
wrest knowledge from poverty and hard work, to astonish
the world in later life. He made his entry into Philadel
phia, a shabby-looking lad with two large rolls of bread
under his arm, and munching a third, — the young girl
who was destined to become his wife standing in a door
way and smiling at the doleful apparition. He soon found
employment as a journeyman printer.
He was an uncommonly bright young man, but not at
all a perfect one. On the contrary, there was a decided
streak of badness in him. And here is one of the most
striking peculiarities of his career: a struggle of a strong
intellect with strong passions and faults, the intellect
1885] Carl Schurz 311
winning the battle by systematic effort. At first his
principles, or what he called so, hung rather loosely about
him. As a boy he had adopted vegetarianism, sincerely
believing in it. He got rid of it in this way: a few
months after his arrival in Philadelphia he had oc
casion to go to Boston for the purpose of seeing his
father. On his way back the sloop on which he travelled
was becalmed off Block Island and the seamen caught
some cod. Young Franklin had formerly been very fond
of fried fish ; and when the cod came hot out of the frying
pan "I balanced some time between principle and inclina
tion," he frankly says in his autobiography, "till I re
collected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller
fish taken out of their stomachs ; then I thought : ' If you
eat one another, I do not see why I may not eat you. '
So I dined upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat
with other people, returning only now and then occa
sionally to a vegetable diet." " So convenient it is," he
adds, "to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one
to make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."
This was quite witty. But it is upon reasoning of just
this kind that smart men yield to temptations which
smell well enough to excite an appetite, and then, thus
getting rid of their principles, gradually become bad men.
Young Franklin was upon a slippery path. A friend of
his brother's at Newport entrusted him with a sum of
money to be collected from a debtor at Philadelphia,
and to be transmitted on demand. Franklin collected
the money and used a large part of it for himself and
his friends, thus virtually embezzling it — a thing which
subsequently caused him much trouble. But still worse:
Governor Keith of Pennsylvania induced Franklin to
undertake a voyage to London, to purchase an outfit
for a new printing-office. Before leaving Philadelphia,
Franklin exchanged promises of marriage with Miss
The Writings of [1885
Read, the young lady who had watched him eating his
rolls on his first arrival. At London, where he remained
about eighteen months, young Franklin got into all sorts
of intrigues with low women, at one time even trying to
seduce the mistress of a friend. To Miss Read he wrote
only once, to tell her that it would be a long time before
he would get back — which was meant and understood
to be a breach of the engagement.
On the other hand, he worked industriously, saved
some money, read many books, made some valuable
acquaintances, wrote some ingenious things and then
returned to Philadelphia with a merchant who befriended
him. On the voyage he pondered very seriously over
the disreputable things he had done. His failings alarmed
him, and he looked round for a staff on which to lean.
First he became suspicious of his religious views. He had
abandoned revealed religion when he was a mere boy.
While in London he had written a pamphlet entitled a
''Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and
Pain," a very ingenious production, designed to prove
that if God is the Maker of the Universe and is all-good
and all-wise, whatsoever he does must be good and wise;
and if he is all-powerful, there can be nothing existing
or acting against or without his consent; that, therefore,
all that human creatures do, must be done according to
the will of the all-powerful God, and must be good and
wise; that, therefore, no freedom of will nor distinction
between good and evil — indeed, no evil can exist, and that
all creatures must be equally esteemed by the Creator.
This acute piece of logic now appeared unsatisfactory to
him, — not as if he had detected any flaw in the reasoning,
but because he began to suspect, while his doctrine might
be correct, it did not work well morally, and was, therefore,
as he said, "not very useful."
It struck him that, not a certain specific religion, but
Carl Schurz 313
a religion of some sort was necessary to mankind, and
that the important part of the office of that religion was
not to make men believe certain things, but to make men
do certain things. He wanted a religion; and as he had
given up the Revelation and could not bring himself back
to it, he — if I may use that expression — proceeded to
reveal a religion of his own to himself. He put down a
creed and a liturgy in writing for his own use. His creed
consisted in a profession of belief in the existence of one
Supreme and most perfect Being, author and father
of the gods themselves. These gods he conceived to be
intermediate between the Supreme Being and man, each
of them controlling a solar system. And to this ruler of
our solar system, our particular God, he addressed his
worship. His scheme of worship or liturgy consisted
mainly of an ''adoration," praising God as the Creator,
the all- wise and all-good, — and then a " petition" resem
bling the litanies of the Episcopalian prayer book, praying
God to aid him in being good and in doing good to others.
All this he wrote down in a neat little prayer book for
his own use, which is said to be still in existence.
This creed, except the fantastic conception of the
intermediate gods, he adhered to substantially through
life. As an old man he wrote in his autobiography:
I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and
though some of the dogmas of that persuasion appeared to me
unintelligible, others doubtful, I never was without some
religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the
existence of a Deity; that He made the world and governed
it by His Providence; that the most acceptable service of God
was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal, and
that all crime will be punished and virtue rewarded, either
here or hereafter. These I esteemed the essentials of every
religion; and to be found in all the religions we had in this
country. I respected them all, though with different degrees
314 The Writings of [1885
of respect, as I found them more or less mixed with other
articles which, without any tendency to inspire, promote or
confirm morality, served principally to divide us and make us
unfriendly to one another. This respect to all, with an opinion
that the worst had some good effects, induced me to avoid all
discourse that might tend to lessen the good opinion another
might have of his own religion.
This liturgy he seems to have practiced for twenty years,
while at the same time he held a pew in the Presbyterian
church. The pretension of one church to be exclusively
right and others wrong, he used to liken to "man travel
ling in foggy weather; those at some distance before him
were wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him,
and also the people in the fields on each side; but near
him all appears clear, though in truth he is as much in
the fog as any of them."
This was his self-made religion, which satisfied him so
much that he ceased disquieting himself with doubts
and metaphysical speculations. Meanwhile at the age of
twenty- two he had established a printing-office and worked
industriously. But his self-made religion did not at once
have the moral effect he desired it to produce. His in
tercourse with low women continued, and about a year
after he had written his creed and liturgy an illegitimate
son was born to him. As he became settled in business,
he looked round for a wife — this, too, in a somewhat
businesslike way. He became engaged to a Miss God
frey, but the matter fell through because the girl could
not bring any money with her. He looked further round,
but to no purpose. Finally he returned to his first
attachment, Deborah Read, the young woman who
had watched him munching his roll, with whom at a
later period he had exchanged promises, and whom he
had then abandoned. Franklin met her again, the old
isssi Carl Schurz 315
affection revived, and he married her, thus making good,
as far as possible, the wrong he had done her. He tells
the whole story in his autobiography in a candid, matter-
of-fact way, without the least affectation of romance, or
even sentiment. But on the whole it must be admitted
that, while the final marriage was creditable enough, his
conduct at this period of life does not appear like that of
a high-minded man. It was painfully apparent what
tendencies in his nature he had to overcome in order to
rise to a high level.
But he was equal to the task. When he had become a
married man he conceived, as he tells us, "the bold and
arduous project of arriving at moral perfection." He
" wished to live without committing any fault at any
time." He undertook to supplement his self-made reli
gion by a self-made scheme of moral improvement, and
a quaint, thoroughly Franklinian scheme it was. He
tried to practice self-discipline and to cultivate virtue
by means of bookkeeping. This is the way he did it.
He wrote the names of the virtues he resolved to practice,
in a little book, allotting one page to each. They were
thirteen: Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugal
ity, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness,
Tranquillity, Chastity and Humility. Each page he
divided into little squares, and each day he marked there
every offense committed against any of the virtues. At
first the result discouraged him somewhat, for he did not
find himself quite as good as he expected. Then it
struck him that he might make better progress if he paid
special attention to one virtue at a time, so as to acquire
the habit of it, letting the others meanwhile take their
chance. This system of methodical watchfulness by
bookkeeping he carried on for a long period, and repeated
it from time to time throughout his long life with remark
able success. He tells us himself that he saw his faults
316 The Writings of [1885
constantly diminish, and when a very old man he wrote:
"It may be well my posterity should be informed that to
this little artifice, with the blessing of God, their ancestor
owed much of the constant felicity of his life, down to his
79th year."
Thus the great Franklin, as history knows him, began
to take shape. He prospered in his business of course,
working early and late, setting type and printing ; making
lampblack and ink ; dealing in rags and soap and live-geese-
feathers, and when he had bought a new supply of paper
carting it home himself on a wheelbarrow. He got the
bulk of the jobs, and soon he had a newspaper going, the
Pennsylvania Gazette, which he presently made the best
and most successful in the colonies. Having disciplined
himself, he now began to educate the people.
It may be doubted whether any publication in this
country ever made so large an impression upon the public
mind as Franklin's famous almanac, the Poor Richard.
It was a comic almanac, full of fun, not always quite
decent; but it achieved its phenomenal success and
celebrity by those quaint bits of proverbial philosophy
which were inserted in the little spaces between the
remarkable days in the calendar. Almost all of them
became household words at once, and many have re
mained so ever since. Here are some of our old acquaint
ances: "Early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man
healthy and wealthy and wise." "He that has a trade,
has an estate." "There are no gains without pains."
"He that by the plow would thrive, himself must either
hold or drive." "Little strokes fell great oaks." "He
that goes a-borrowing, goes a-sorrowing." "Vessels large
may venture more, but little boats should keep near shore."
"Three removes are as bad as a fire." "What maintains
one vice would bring up two children." "Forewarned,
forearmed." "Fish and visitors smell in three days."
1885] Carl Schurz 317
"It is hard for an empty bag to stand upright.'* "Let
thy maid-servant be faithful, strong and homely."
"Necessity never made a good bargain. " "Experience
keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
"Keep your eyes wide open before marriage; half shut
afterwards." — And so on.
Many of these sentiments, of course, were not entirely
new with Poor Richard. "Not a tenth part of the wis
dom," says Franklin himself, "was my own, but rather
the gleanings that I had made of the sense of all ages and
nations." But what was his own was the selection and
the quaint, pregnant form which gave that wisdom cur
rency. Of many sayings now in everybody's mouth it
is scarcely remembered that Franklin was their author,
such as "Time is money," "Knowledge is power," and
that well-known definition: "Orthodoxy is my doxy, and
heterodoxy is your doxy," of which John Adams said that
it was the brightest epigram he had ever heard.
It has frequently been said of most of Poor Richard's
proverbial philosophy that it does not address itself to
the highest instincts and aspirations of human nature.
This is true. The same may be said of the Franklinian
maxim "Honesty is the best policy." It implies that
honesty is only one of several different policies, but that
of these it is the safest and the best. This maxim does
indeed not rise to the loftier plane of the sentiment that
right is right, and must be maintained as right, no matter
whether it appear as the best policy or not. But Franklin
recognized the fact that while this sentiment is professed
by many, it is the controlling motive only with few. And
he easily concluded that, while right, indeed, should be
maintained for its own sake, it would help the cause of
right and honesty amazingly, with the common run of
mankind, if honesty were at the same time recognized as
the best policy and the safest investment. In fact, he
318 The Writings of [1885
had in this respect gone through some instructive experi
ences with himself. Possessing a full share of the evil
passions and dangerous frailties of human nature, he had
found himself obliged to call upon his understanding to
quicken and support his moral sense. His moral nature
was originally not at all of the ideal stamp. His was
essentially an intellectual morality. He had to try hard
to become a good man by becoming a prudent and a wise
man ; he had to reason himself up to the highest standard
of moral sense, and the measure of success he achieved
in this, is largely the measure of his greatness. Many
men have to reason themselves up to a high morality — only
they do not succeed. Moreover, he had to appeal to a
population still in a raw social state, poor, and in their
struggles with the necessities of the day naturally dis
posed to understand the coarse voice of interest more
easily than the whispers of the finer feelings. Poor
Richard's homely lessons of thrift and general worldly
wisdom, in showing them the way of prosperity through
honesty and justice, pushed them forward at the same
time in the way of moral elevation. The American
people were after all much the better for Poor Richard's
teachings.
The success of Poor Richard was prodigious. It
gained a yearly circulation of 10,000 copies. It was
translated into French, Spanish and modern Greek, and
thus gave Franklin his first celebrity in Europe. Mean
time he had also begun to make Philadelphia a literary
and philosophical center. Philadelphia was then a town
of from 9000 to 10,000 inhabitants, a stretched-out and
shady place, every house having its garden and every
family its cow. Pretty much everybody had enough to
live on, but few people more than enough. Life was slow
and dull ; tolerant as to religion ; few books to read except
religious works; no mental activity except about trade
1885] Carl Schurz 319
and theology. And of this Franklin made intellectual
and literary center — a strange underta1/ g. The way
in which he did it was thoroughly chaT' eristic.
While he was still a young jour yman printer he
founded a club for debate and m .tual improvement,
called the Junto. Did he have any doctors and professors
to draw upon? No, he got together such bright young
men as he could find. There were among them four
printers, one surveyor, one shoemaker, one carpenter,
one engrosser of deeds, one self-taught mathematician,
one merchant's clerk and one young gentleman of some
fortune with literary tastes. A majority of them being
mechanics, the club was dubbed the " Leathern Apron
Club." Any person to be admitted had to declare that
he loved mankind in general and truth for truth's sake.
At each weekly meeting each member had first to answer
a number of questions: What remarkable thing he had
read or heard of ; what had been the reason of the success
or failure of any one within his knowledge ; what effects of
vice or virtue he had observed; what defect in the laws
of the colony had come to his notice ; whether he thought
of anything in which the Junto might be serviceable to
mankind or to the country, or to any one of its members ;
whether any deserving stranger had arrived in town, and
how he could be obliged and encouraged, — and so on.
Then discussion followed. Thus the "Leathern Aprons"
were stimulated to observe and to think, and to formulate
and express their thoughts. Then the young men began,
under Franklin's leadership, to investigate and discuss
all sorts of philosophical, religious and political questions,
somewhat crudely perhaps at first, but earnestly, ingen
iously and perseveringly, and always with an eye to public
or private usefulness. Neither were their debates idle
talk. They boldly undertook to reform things in their
town and the colony. Some subject of public complaint
320 The Writings of [1885
was mentione^ ;n the Junto, an essay was read about it
and a discuss; <v followed; the essay, amended after
debate, was primed in Franklin's Gazette; the impulse
for a public movement was given and in many cases the
improvement carried out. Thus Franklin's leathern-
apron philosophers became practical reformers and public
benefactors in more tiian one way. They wanted to
enlarge their reading, and that was the origin of the great
Philadelphia Library. They wanted to systematize in
quiry, and out of it grew the American Philosophical
Society. The Junto lasted nearly forty years. That
same "Leathern Apron Club" became the best school
of philosophy, morals and politics then existing in the
colonies. It organized that intelligence, inquiry and
public spirit which are the making of new countries. Of
course, most of its thinking was done by the young man
who had at one time threatened to become a pretty bad
boy himself. And he did most of the studying too, for
at the age of twenty-seven he began learning French,
Italian, Spanish and Latin, and he practiced music on the
harp, the guitar, the violin, the violoncello and later on
a glass-harmonica invented by himself.
At the same time he kept himself virtuous with the aid
of bookkeeping, reformed the night watch, organized the
first volunteer fire-company in the city (the second in the
colonies), wrote pamphlets about finance and currency,
about the defense of the colonies against the French,
organized a volunteer militia, built a battery and got
cannon for it, started street cleaning, introduced the
broom corn, the yellow willow for basket-making and the
use of plaster of Paris to improve meadows, caused a ship
to be sent to the Polar seas for the discovery of the North
west passage, invented the famous open fireplace called
the Franklin stove — a good many things for a young
man — and then he made ready to become one of the
i88$] Carl Schurz 321
first scientific men of the age. This happened in this
wise.
Here was a man absolutely without any scientific
education. Scientific methods and apparatus were un
known to him. But what he did have was a pair of open
and remarkably active eyes, a restlessly inquiring mind
and an exquisite faculty of putting two and two together.
In one word, he was a keen observer and a keen reasoner
at the same time. He became a great light of science by
simply applying his penetrating common-sense to the
things he saw. One of his first achievements was his
famous theory about the movement of storms. The way
he made his discovery was thoroughly characteristic. One
evening, in 1743, Franklin wanted to observe an eclipse
of the moon which was to occur at nine o'clock. Before
that hour a violent northeast storm arose, and the eclipse
could not be seen. Some time afterward he read in a
Boston paper that the storm had begun there only an
hour after the eclipse was over. Now, Boston is situated
northeast of Philadelphia. And here was a storm blowing
from the northeast, coming therefore from Boston, and
arriving in Philadelphia a good deal earlier than it had
occurred at the place it apparently started from. "There
must be a mistake somewhere," most people would have
said, and dismissed the matter. "Very curious," said
Franklin, "let us look into it." He wrote to Boston and
heard that the facts were actually so. He inquired
further and found that it was usually so with these
northeast storms. Now he looked round for analogies,
and then settled upon the following explanation:
Suppose a great tract of country, land and sea, to wit,
Florida and the Bay of Mexico, to have clear weather for
several days, and to be heated by the sun, and its air thereby
exceedingly rarefied. Suppose the country Northeastward, as
VOL. IV. — 21
322 The Writings of [1885
Pennsylvania, New England, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland,
to be at the same time covered with clouds, and its air chilled
and condensed. The rarefied air, being lighter, must rise,
and the denser air next to it will press into its place. That
will be followed by the next denser air, that by the next, and
so on. So the water in a long sluice or mill race, being stopped
by a gate, is at rest like the air in a calm ; but as soon as you
open the gate at one end to let it out, the water which is next
to the gate begins first to move, that which is next to it follows,
and so, though the water proceeds forward to the gate, the mo
tion which began there, runs backward, if one may so speak, to
the upper end of the race, where the water is last in motion.
That was all. How simple it was !
In a similar way he started valuable theories about the
noxious character of the air exhaled from the lungs, and
he may be said to have originated the science of ventila
tion. The manner in which he tested the effect of heat
upon different colors was remarkably characteristic of
his simple common-sense way of scientific experiment.
He describes it himself, thus :
I took a number of little square pieces of broadcloth from a
tailor's pattern card, of various colors. There were black, deep
blue, lighter blue, green, purple, red, yellow, white and other
colors or shades of colors. I laid them all out upon the snow
in a bright sunshiny morning. In a few hours the black, being
warmed most by the sun, was sunk so low as to be below the
stroke of the sun's rays; the dark blue almost as low, the
lighter blue not quite so much as the dark, the other colors
less as they were lighter; and the white remained on the sur
face of the snow, not having entered it at all. (What signifies
philosophy that does not apply to home use !) May we not
learn from hence, that black clothes are not so fit to wear in a
hot, sunny climate as white ones?
The thing was indeed so simple that it appears aston
ishing, not how anybody should have thought of it, but
how anybody could have failed to think of it.
Carl Schurz 323
In exactly the same way Franklin achieved his greatest
success, which at one bound placed him in the front rank
of the scientific men of his century. On a visit to Boston
he witnessed some experiments in electricity made by
Dr. Spence, a scientific lecturer from England. They
excited his curiosity. The recent invention of the
Ley den jar had much advanced the knowledge of the
subject and made it a matter of fashionable interest and
entertainment. But to Franklin it was entirely new.
On his return to Philadelphia he received an electrical
tube with directions for using it. This was in 1746.
Franklin repeated the experiments he had seen at Boston,
became fascinated with the study, interested some friends
in it, and then went on making experiments of his own,
which nobody had ever witnessed before.
Soon he outstripped all the scientific lights of his time
by the brilliancy of his achievements on a field on which
the best minds of the period were competing. His was
the theory of plus and minus, or positive and negative
electricity; and then it struck him that lightning and
electricity must be essentially the same thing. The way
in which he formed his conclusion was exceedingly simple
again. He observed that the electrical fluid strikingly
agreed with lightning in several essential particulars.
This he knew from seeing and experimenting. From
this he concluded that they were probably the same thing.
"But," said he, "the electric fluid is attracted by points.
We do not know whether this property is in lightning.
But since they agree in all the particulars wherein we
can already compare them, is it not likely they agree
likewise in this? Let the experiment be made." And
he made it, again in a very simple way. He caught the
lightning in a snare as it were, and then interrogated it.
Everybody has heard the story of the kite, and seen the
picture. He stretched a large silk handkerchief on two
324 The Writings of [1885
sticks fastened together crosswise and put a sharpened
iron wire on the top of the perpendicular stick. To this
kite he tied a long hempen string, and to the lower end of
this a silken cord, and where the two joined he fastened
an iron key. On a summer afternoon when a thunder
cloud was coming on, he went out with his son to fly the
kite. As the thundercloud passed over it, the fibers of
the hempen string rose and bristled up, and the iron key
gave forth electric sparks. The lightning was caught and
answered the question addressed to it. The simple-
experiment conclusively proved that Franklin's reasoning
was correct, that electricity and lightning were the same
thing, and that lightning could be caught and conducted
by the piece of metal with a sharp point.
At the same time great news came from Europe. His
letters about his theories and experiments had attracted
wide attention in England and on the Continent. His
suggestions concerning the identity of electricity and
lightning and the conducting of the latter by iron rods
had been practically tested in France with complete
success, at the same time that Franklin caught the light
ning with his kite. Then honors began to shower upon
the modest Philadelphia printer. The Royal Society
unanimously elected him one of its members. Yale and
Harvard gave him the honorary degree of master of arts.
His doctor's title he received not many years afterwards
in England. He suddenly found himself one of the most
famous men of his time in the world of science.
At the same time he had put himself on the high road
of becoming one of the first statesmen of his country.
He began humbly. His rule was never to seek a public
office and never to decline one. In 1736, at the age of
thirty, he was chosen clerk of the general assembly, which
he remained, by reelection, for several years. In 1737
he was made postmaster of Philadelphia; a few years
i88S] Carl Schurz 325
later a member of the assembly, also an alderman and
a justice of the peace. And then he was appointed
Postmaster- General of the colonies. He quickened the
snail pace of the mails, straightened the bridle paths,
shortened the time it took a letter to go from Philadelphia
to Boston and vice versa from three weeks to one week
and a half, and made the postal service yield an annual
revenue. He served as a peace commissioner in making
Indian treaties. And then he invented the American Union.
The war between France and England had begun, the
most memorable and dramatic incidents of which were
Braddock's defeat and the capture of Quebec. Delegates
of the colonies north of the Potomac met at Albany to
consider what should be done for defense. Franklin* s
common-sense spoke: Let the colonies unite and they
will be strong. He laid before the convention a plan for
a union foreshadowing in its principal features the Con
stitution of the United States adopted thirty-five years
later, — in fact substantially the same plan adopted by
the British Government one hundred years later as the
sum of wisdom in the organization of the Dominion of
Canada. It was, however, rejected at the time, but the
idea of union remained alive. Indeed, it had been sug
gested before Franklin, by William Penn in 1697, and by
Coxe in 1722 — but only theoretically. Franklin applied
it first to a given state of things as a remedy for pressing
evils. And when his plan was rejected and another
substituted by the British Government which involved
the taxing of the colonies by act of Parliament, it was
Franklin who, with prophetic utterance, pronounced
that axiom: "No taxation without representation,"
which repelled the stamp act, and which became the
first watchword of American patriotism in its struggle
for final independence. There was the American states
man of common-sense, fully developed.
326 The Writings of [1885
Franklin aided the Government zealously in the French
war. He slyly extorted appropriations for military pur
poses from the Quakers in the Pennsylvania assembly.
He helped General Braddock to get wagons from the
Pennsylvania farmers upon Poor Richard's bond. After
Braddock's defeat he himself took the field against hostile
Indians and came near being made a general with an
independent command.
But his destiny sent him to other fields of usefulness.
The Pennsylvanians were constantly wrangling with their
proprietaries, William Penn's sons. One of these was a
miser, the other a spendthrift; both were blockheads
and both bent upon squeezing as much money out of
the colony as possible. To represent the interests of the
colony near the home government Franklin was sent to
England as the agent of Pennsylvania. Thus began his
illustrious diplomatic career.
He was then fifty-one years old. Look at his past life.
He had been a journeyman printer, a merchant's clerk, a
boss printer, a journalist and an almanac maker, a fire
man, the inventor of a stove, clerk of the general assem
bly, member of the same, alderman, justice of the peace,
postmaster, militia colonel in active service, Postmaster-
General, member and trustee of various boards and
institutions, experimenter and discoverer in electricity,
and inventor of the lightning-rod. He had achieved a
great name in the world of science; he had in the mean
time by industry and prudent management accumulated
an independent fortune. Now he was a diplomat. A
truly American career, and such it remained to the end.
Franklin had no training as a diplomat, just as he had
no training as a man of science ; but, as he had the scientific
instinct, so he had the diplomatic instinct to perfection.
True diplomacy is not, as some have said, the art of
lying. It is the art of making truth pleasant ; of combin-
1885] Carl Schurz 327
ing interests; of yielding a little to accomplish much;
of knowing how to persuade, how to push and how to
wait. All these things Franklin instinctively knew how
to do, and he even perfected himself in the diplomatic
art of dining. He rather liked it, too. He loved, as he
said, "good company, a chat, a laugh, a glass and even
a song as well as ever," and at the same time he relished
more than ever "the grave observations and wise sentences
of old men's conversation. ' ' His great diplomatic achieve
ment during the first five-year period of his service con
sisted in making a compromise on a disputed question
in which the colony had all the advantages and the
proprietaries an empty nothing.
He had also his ups and downs. In 1762 he returned
to Philadelphia, desiring to give himself entirely to scien
tific pursuits. An Indian broil made him the staunch
friend and defender of the poor savage, and a new quarrel
with the - proprietaries sent him back to England. Now
his diplomatic business grew more serious. The stamp
act was passed. At the request of the government the
colonial agents, although protesting against the measure,
had given the names of men fitted to be stamp-tax col
lectors. When the news reached America, a storm broke
loose. Philadelphia, like other cities, was in a blaze of
excitement. Franklin's enemies spread the story that
he had not only approved of the stamp act but tried at
once to get under it a fat office for a friend. Popular
feeling against him ran so high that his house was said
to be in danger of being mobbed. Franklin, when he
heard of this, bore it calmly. The true Franklin was soon
to appear again.
The business world in England grew alarmed at the
outburst in America and began to clamor for the repeal
of the stamp act. Parliament instituted an inquiry.
At the bar of the House of Commons English business
328 The Writings of
men spoke for their pockets; Franklin was summoned to
speak for America. This was one of the greatest moments
in Franklin's life. He set forth the condition of things
in America with such clearness, defended the rights of
his countrymen with such force and declared their de
termination to resist arbitrary taxation with such courage
that his hearers were equally astonished at the range of
his knowledge and at the defiant firmness of his attitude.
If the calm philosopher was so fierce, what could be ex
pected of the sturdy and excitable rustics he represented?
The impression he produced was profound. When reports
of this scene became known in America, Franklin was
again the hero of the day. His very enemies confessed
themselves proud of their representative. The stamp
act was repealed. America was once more in a blaze of
excitement, this time joyous. And at every one of the
numberless carousals that followed, Franklin's health
was drunk as that of the great champion and benefactor
of the American people.
But once more he had to pass through one of those
strange contrasts of contumely and honor so characteristic
of public life. George III. stubbornly insisted on having
his own way. New methods of taxing the colonies were
devised. New excitement in America. Resolutions were
adopted all over the colonies to buy no more English
goods. Now the English shopkeeper grew ugly too.
Irritation followed irritation. Franklin strove in vain
to enlighten and propitiate public opinion by clever
newspaper publications. The adverse current was irre
sistible. The Ministerial party began to look on him as
the chief promoter of American resistance. Soon they
found an opportunity to humiliate him. In December,
1772, some letters fell into his hands written by Governor
Hutchinson of Massachusetts to persons of influence in
England suggesting measures of force against the dis-
1885] Carl Schurz 329
affected in the colony. These letters Franklin sent to
the Massachusetts committee of correspondence to warn
the patriots of the treachery of the colonial officers.
They created a profound excitement. The assembly
petitioned the King for the removal of the Governor.
Then Franklin's enemies in England thought their time
had come. Franklin was summoned to appear before
the Privy Council where the petition was to be considered.
He was summoned only to be publicly outraged. Wed-
derburn, the King's solicitor, appeared as Governor
Hutchinson's counsel, and in an elaborate speech he
poured a torrent of abuse upon Franklin's head, denounc
ing him as a thief who had stolen Governor Hutchinson's
letters, and as the most mischievous enemy of the country.
Franklin stood under the pelting storm with unmoved
face, in silent and defenseless dignity. The next day he
found himself dismissed from the office of Postmaster-
General of the colonies.
Another picture. Lord Chatham, who had consulted
Franklin as to the policy by which America might be
pacified, took him upon the floor of the House of Lords
to listen to a debate on Lord Chatham's plan of pacifica
tion. Lord Sandwich, opposing it, referred to Franklin
as "one of the bitterest and most mischievous ene
mies the country had ever known." Whereupon Lord
Chatham, with all the magnificence of his utterance, de
clared that
if he were the first Minister of this country and had the care
of settling this momentous business, he should not be ashamed
of publicly calling to his assistance a person so perfectly
acquainted with the whole of American affairs as the gentleman
so injuriously reflected on; one, he was pleased to say, whom all
Europe held in high estimation for his knowledge and wisdom
and ranked with our Boyles and Newtons; who was an honor,
not to the English nation only, but to human nature.
330 The Writings of [1885
When Franklin heard this, his countenance was as placid
and unmoved as it had been under the hailstorm of
Wedderburn's vituperation.
In March, 1775, Franklin left England for America
to confer with the Continental Congress. During his
ten years' sojourn in England, he had by no means been
entirely absorbed by public affairs. The versatility of
this model Yankee had been as wonderful as ever. While
zealously advocating the cause of the colonies he had at
the same time thought and written on such things as the
introduction of silk culture in America; he had worked to
promote Captain Cook's philanthropic expedition to the
Pacific islands; he had drawn up a plan for a new system
of spelling; made valuable studies and experiments in
ventilation; inquired largely and ingeniously into the
cause of colds; discussed in his letters such things as the
average fall of rain; chimneys; fireproof stairs; metallic
roofs; the Northwest passage; spots on the sun; the
glass-harmonica; improved carriage wheels; glass blowing;
the torpedo; the Aurora Borealis; inflammatory gases;
Prince Rupert's drops; the effects of vegetation on air
and water; smoke-consuming stoves; the effect of oil on
the sea in storms; the relative force required to pull
boats over shallow and over deep water; pointed or blunt
lightning-rods; and points of political economy discussed
with Adam Smith. If anything had escaped his observa
tion, it must have been far out of his way.
When he arrived at Philadelphia, he found his country
in open revolt against Great Britain. His keen eye had,
much earlier than others, foreseen that a separation of
the colonies from the mother country was likely to come.
Still he had worked to avert it, faithfully, though without
much hope. When it came it was to him neither unex
pected nor unwelcome. Now the struggle had begun.
The Continental Congress governed the United Colonies.
Carl Schurz 331
The battle of Lexington had been fought, and the peace
able Philosophical Society was eagerly studying methods
of making saltpeter. Franklin found himself greeted as
a revolutionary leader, and he had slept only one night on
dry land when the general assembly of Pennsylvania ap
pointed him a member of the Continental Congress. The
old philosopher — for he was then sixty-nine — was kept
prodigiously busy. He had to plan a new postal system
and was made Postmaster-General, at a salary of $1000
a year. He was put at the head of the Commissioners
of Indian Affairs, and made a member of several of the
busiest committees. While doing all these things in
Congress, he was put at the head of the committee of
safety of Pennsylvania, which had to make the militia
ready for war and fortify the river — a committee which
met at six o'clock every morning. But more. He was
hurried off to General Washington's headquarters to de
vise a system of army organization — and, a little too
late, to Canada to attach the Canadians to the American
cause. A busy time for the old philosopher, then seventy.
And then, scarcely returned, he was made a member
of the Committee to draft the Declaration of Independ
ence — he the only member from Pennsylvania who was
stoutly for independence the year before. The Declara
tion of Independence being adopted and signed, he made
his famous historic joke. "We must be unanimous,"
said John Hancock, "there must be no pulling different
ways; we must all hang together." "Yes," said Franklin
dryly, "we must, indeed, all hang together, or, most
assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
And then he took an important part in framing the
plan of confederation, insisting, against the judgment
of his associates, that it would not do to give the small
States the same power in Congress as the large and popu
lous ones, and that, if they had an equal vote without
332 The Writings of [1885
bearing equal burdens, a confederation upon such iniqui
tous principles would never last long. Indeed, it did not
last long. Ten years later every sensible man knew that
the old philosopher was right, and the Constitution of
the United States did justice to his foresight.
In the same debate he threw a flashing ray of intelligence
upon the future with regard to slavery. A Southern man
spoke of slaves and sheep as equally liable to taxation.
"Slaves," said Franklin, "rather weaken than strengthen
the state. There is some difference between slaves and
sheep; sheep will never make any insurrection."
But as if all this had not been occupation enough, he
was in addition made president of the convention called
for giving Pennsylvania a new constitution; and finally,
after having served on a committee of Congress in a last
attempt at negotiation with the British Admiral Howe,
he was sent once more abroad to invoke aid for the
struggling young Republic. This was his famous embassy
to France. He arrived at Paris in December, 1776.
France was then surreptitiously aiding the American
cause. The Government did it to weaken and humiliate
England. French society favored it from an impulse of
sentiment. Society was then in that strange intellectual
and moral ferment which foreshadowed the great revolu
tion. The ostentatious and exhausting despotism of
Louis XIV., the scandals of the Regency and the putrid
corruption of Louis XV. 's reign had left behind them
among all classes of men a vague presentiment that some
great change was coming. All the traditional beliefs
and ideas of the past had been shaken. Montesquieu
in his Persian Letters had riddled all social, political and
clerical institutions with caustic criticism, and preached
in his Spirit of the Laws the gospel of constitutional
government. The Encyclopedists under the lead of
Diderot and d'Alembert had exhausted the armory of
1885] Carl Schurz 333
wit and science to destroy the power of traditional au
thority. Voltaire had pelted all religious fanaticism and
political tyranny with the tremendous hailstorm of his
sarcasm. Rousseau's dreamy philosophy had moved the
sentimental with the beauties of his restored state of
nature, and inflamed the imagination of the young with
the picture of an ideal republic. Everybody had become
a philosopher, and every philosopher thought it his office
to deny some of the things which formerly had been taken
for granted, and to smile at some of the beliefs he himself
had formerly respected. Society was fairly ringing with
ironical laughter at itself. Witty negation was the most
spicy amusement of members of the Church, and the
salons of the highest aristocracy resounded with dis
cussions of philosophical republicanism. Society danced
upon a volcano, knowing the crust to be thin, and eagerly
knocking holes into it. The very persons who consti
tuted the traditional order of things played gayly with the
fire that was to consume them.
To this society the American Revolution, a people far
away in the Western wilds fighting for their liberty, ap
peared like a theatrical performance illustrating their
own vague dreams. They became enthusiastic over the
piece, were eager to applaud the heroes of the drama and
willing to pay for the spectacle — aye, some, moved by
genuine feeling, to take part in the performance as actors
themselves.
But things went badly at the beginning on the American
theater of war, and the interest in France began to flag.
The French Government was not unselfish. While it
desired to cripple and humiliate England, it had taken
care not to compromise itself so far as to be obliged to see
the revolted colonies through at any cost. It still might
without disgracing or endangering itself have abandoned
them, if they showed no self-sustaining power. And, no
334 The Writings of [1885
doubt, the mishaps at the beginning of the war had pro
duced a discouraging impression. Society, too, began to
be a little sobered in its sympathies by the monoto
nous reports of defeat. The republican spectacle did not
come up to its expectations. Then Franklin arrived in
Paris. Here was a new sensation. He was the revelation
of America to Europe. And more. He was the pic
turesque embodiment of the philosophical republicanism
dreamed of in French society. He was the familiar
character of Poor Richard, "Bon homme Richard, " alive.
He was the renowned sage who had tamed the lightning
of heaven. He was the courageous patriot who had
pleaded the cause of his country at the bar of the British
Parliament, defied the power of the court and made the
Declaration of Independence — for, indeed, in their opinion,
he had done it all alone. His very appearance seemed to
tell the whole story. No artistic imagination could have
shaped a finer embodiment of that which everybody
wished the representative new- world republican to be. He
was then seventy years old, the very picture of robust old
age; his face benignant, shrewd, self-possessed, placid and
serene; his bearing one of natural ease and dignity. He
did not, as some traditions have it, affect a rustic appear
ance. The woolen stockings, the heavy shoes tied with
leather strings and the broad-brimmed hat are a myth.
His attire was simple and modest, but gentlemanly accord
ing to the taste of the time. On public occasions or in
society he appeared in black velvet, white stockings and
silver-buckled shoes. But he threw aside the fashionable
wig, wearing only his natural hair, thin on the top of the
head, but falling in ample gray locks upon his shoulders.
His conversation was quiet, straightforward and instruc
tive; full of wise sayings, quaintly original, witty and
good-natured, always within the rules of good taste, show
ing that he knew the ways of the world.
i88si Carl Schurz 335
Such was Benjamin Franklin, printer, of Philadelphia,
when he appeared in France as a representative of the
young American Republic. To say that he was received
with respect and affection, would be saying nothing. He
was idolized, adored.
Men imagined [says Lacretelle] they saw in Franklin a sage
of antiquity, come back to give austere lessons and generous
examples to the moderns. They personified in him the Re
public of which he was the representative and the legislator.
They regarded his virtues as those of his countrymen, and
even judged of their physiognomy by the imposing and se
vere traits of his own. Happy was he who could gain admit
tance to see him in the house he occupied.
He was the lion of the street no less than of the salon.
A correspondent of an American paper wrote:
When Dr. Franklin appears abroad, it is more like a public
than a private gentleman, and the curiosity of the people is so
great, that he may be said to be followed by a genteel mob. A
friend of mine paid something for a place at a two-pair-of-
stairs window to see him pass in his coach, but the crowd was so
great that he could but barely say he saw him.
Innumerable pictures and prints, busts, medals and
medallions of him were made, some so small as to be set
in the lids of snuffboxes, or to be worn in rings. Courtier
and shopkeeper, duchess and chambermaid, talked of
Franklin with equal interest and reverence as the friend
of humankind who looked as if he had come to restore the
golden age.
A wonderful popularity was his — but more wonderful
still, he maintained it the nine long years he was in France.
And, indeed, the young American Republic needed such a
spokesman. He appeared at a critical time and his mere
336 The Writings of [1885
appearance revived the flagging interest and waning con
fidence. What Franklin represented must not only be
necessarily good, but also it could not be doomed to
failure. What he predicted could not but come true. At
the gloomiest moments his face remained serene. When
he was told that Lord Howe had taken Philadelphia, he
jocosely replied: "No, Philadelphia has taken Lord
Howe." When the Revolutionary cause seemed to be
breathing its last, he caused the new American State
constitutions to be translated into French, which were to
the political philosophers of French society a new and
inspiring revelation of their own theories. He lost no
opportunity to represent the cause of America as the
cause of progressive mankind; and having French man
kind devotedly on his side, he got over all the miseries
of the begging diplomat, and obtained from the French
Government all America wanted.
After Burgoyne's surrender the French Government
dropped its disguise. It formally recognized the inde
pendence of the Colonies and made treaties of alliance and
of commerce with the United States. The American
commissioners were, as the envoys of a friendly Power,
solemnly received by Louis XVI. on the 2Oth of March,
1778. In preparing for the great occasion Franklin
thought for the first and last time of accommodating his
appearance to the court ceremonial of a European mon
archy. There was an unbending rule that no man should
appear before the King of France except with a wig on
his head and a light court sword at his side. As the great
hour approached, Franklin ordered a wig. When the
peruquier brought it and tried it on Franklin's head, it
would not fit. "It is too small," said Franklin. "No,
monsieur,'* answered the wigmaker, "your head is too
big. " Franklin then resolved to do the unheard-of thing :
to stand before the Majesty of France in his own hair and
1885] Carl Schurz 337
also without a sword. The chamberlain stood aghast, but
all France applauded, and Europe echoed. Thus the
first recognized envoy of the American Republic appeared
in the diplomacy of the world in the simple garb of an
American gentleman.
Soon afterward there was another presentation, of less
practical significance, but no less picturesque. Voltaire,
eighty-four years old, visited Paris once more, to receive
the last homage of his country and age, and then to die.
The American envoys waited upon him. Voltaire, feeble
and emaciated, raised himself from his couch and spoke
to them in English. "I beg your pardon, " he said to a
French lady present, "I have for a moment yielded to the
vanity of showing that I can speak in the language of a
Franklin." A short time afterward they met again at
a session of the Academy of Sciences in the presence of a
large concourse of scientific and literary men. The vast
audience called upon them to rise and would not be satis
fied until they had embraced and kissed. The cry went
forth: "How charming to see Solon and Sophocles em
brace!" A thoroughly French comparison.
Franklin and Voltaire had indeed something in commons
and yet we can scarcely imagine two human beings in
their mental and moral natures more different. Both
enemies of superstition, bigotry and despotism; both
champions of enlightenment and progress. But Voltaire
the outgrowth of those fanaticisms and tyrannies, those
systems of oppression, mental, moral and physical, which
had enthralled Europe for centuries; he the soul of an
avenger, filled with the spirit of destruction; pouncing
upon wrongs and abuses, upon traditions and authorities,
to slay them with his fierce wit and to hold up their man
gled remains to universal hatred, contempt and ridicule ;
the intellectual precursor of the great revolution, that
terrible upheaving which buried the past in blood and
VOL. iv. — aa
338 The Writings of [1885
ruins and evolved a new social order from the agonies of
universal overthrow. And there stood, in his embrace,
Franklin, the calm, serene, benignant apostle of common-
sense — the child of a society in itself unembarrassed and
unhampered by the oppressions and tyrannies of the past ;
a society of equals all engaged in productive work to
better their fortunes; no traditional social structure in
their way to be destroyed; their welfare dependent only
upon a wise development of existing conditions; he him
self the philosopher of utility ; his mind constantly at work
to make the life of his fellow-beings more comfortable
and happy, in small things as well as great; his ideal of
revolution and liberty not "that the last King should
be strangled with the guts of the last priest, " but that
his people should not be taxed without their own con
sent; that they should shake off the yoke of a distant
power seeking so to tax them, and then be free quietly to
regulate their own affairs, — his whole being toleration,
benevolence and light.
It is certain that Voltaire never could have been Vol
taire had he grown up in America ; and it is equally certain
that Franklin, while he highly respected Voltaire as a " Lit
erary Patriarch" and all that, had no conception at all of
the revolutionary significance of Voltaire's work. It is
remarkable that in Franklin's large correspondence not a
single utterance is to be found indicating that he saw in
the French people and in the movement of ideas any
symptoms of an approaching political and social earth
quake. It was not Solon and Sophocles that embraced,
but the genius of American self-government and the
genius of the French revolution, utterly incapable of
understanding and appreciating one another.
The phenomenal popularity of the philosopher was, of
course, a great aid to the diplomat. But Franklin pos
sessed in the highest degree that invaluable diplomatic
Carl Schurz 339
quality which is called tact. He has been charged with
obsequiousness to the French Government. Those who
make that charge leave out of sight the difficulties of his
position. He had much to ask for and little to offer.
He begged gracefully, accepted with dignity and showed
his gratitude without stint, knowing that he would soon
have to beg for more. He has been accused of being
toward the last a little too easy and even indolent. In
one respect this is true. He did not keep order in his
accounts and correspondence. But in other respects he
was wiser than those diplomats who always want to be
doing something. He understood to perfection the great
art of doing what was necessary and not trying too much,
and of doing what he had to do in the most agreeable
form. Thus he effected what he was sent for : to get from
France all the aid that was needed for the accomplishment
of American independence. In 1781, feeling the burden of
his years, — he was then seventy-five, — he offered his resig
nation to Congress; but instead of accepting it, Congress
added to his embassy the additional office of a member of
the commission to conclude peace with England. He
was associated with Jay and John Adams, whose services
cannot be estimated too highly. In making the treaty
of peace he vainly strove to realize one of his favorite
ideas. He had long advocated the doctrine that free
ships should make free goods, that is, that an enemy's
goods carried in neutral ships should be exempt from
seizure. He went even farther than that. "I wish, " he
wrote to Robert Morris, "the powers would ordain that
unarmed trading ships, as well as fishermen and farmers,
should be respected as working for the common benefit
of mankind, and never be interrupted in their operations
even by national enemies ; but let those only fight with one
another whose trade it is and who are armed and paid
for the purpose." Privateering he condemned as little
340 The Writings of [1885
better than robbing or piracy. But these ideas were
far ahead of the time then; they are somewhat ahead of
the time now; but we are evidently moving in their
direction. In another hundred years mankind may not
stand advanced fully to the point where Benjamin Frank
lin stood a hundred years ago. Indeed, he had the satis
faction of embodying some of his humane principles in
his last diplomatic achievement, a treaty with Prussia,
which Washington praised as " marking a new era in
negotiation."
At last, in July, 1785, Franklin, seventy-nine years old,
was relieved of his duties and returned home. Thomas
Jefferson had been appointed in his place.
There appeared to me [Jefferson wrote at a later day] more
respect and veneration attached to the character of Dr.
Franklin in France, than to that of any other person in the
same country, foreign or native. The succession to Dr.
Franklin at the court of France was an excellent school of
humility. On being presented to any one as the Minister of
America, the commonplace question used in such cases was:
"C'est vous, Monsieur, qui remplace le docteur Frank
lin?" (Is it you, sir, who replace Dr. Franklin?) I gener
ally answered: "Nobody can replace him, sir; I am only
his successor."
Such a popularity undoubtedly had not been without its
martyrdom ; but on the whole he had enjoyed it, and these
nine years in France had, perhaps, until then been the
happiest of his life.
Now the old philosopher returned home, loaded with
years and with honors. During the seven weeks of a not
very comfortable sea voyage he still wrote three of his
most useful essays, one on navigation, another on the
cause and cure of smoky chimneys and another on smoke-
1885] Carl Schurz 341
consuming stoves. The passion of usefulness ruled him
to the last.
He hoped to have rest for the remaining days of his
life in his quiet home at Philadelphia among his books
and friends. But he had scarcely arrived when he was
made a member of the supreme executive council, and
then president (or governor) of the State of Pennsylvania,
an office he held for three consecutive years, elected
unanimously each time except the first, when one vote was
cast against him. But in the meantime he was also a
member of the Convention which framed the Constitution
of the United States. The principles he professed and
acted upon there were of the democratic kind. He did
not believe in a strong and splendid government. He was
opposed to every restriction of the suffrage. He would not
consent to anything that would "depress the virtue and
public spirit of our common people. " He was opposed
to the requirement of a fourteen-years residence before
admitting foreigners to citizenship. He would not con
sent to the absolute veto power of the President. He did
favor the power of Congress to impeach public officers,
the President included. When the Convention found it
self in an apparently hopeless tangle about the equal
representation of the States, large and small, in Congress,
and seemed on the point of breaking up, Franklin first
proposed that every day's session should be opened with
prayer, which, however, was not accepted, as one member
said, because the convention had no money to pay
the clergyman. And finally, Franklin, as a member
of a special committee, to which that question was re
ferred, suggested, as a compromise, the simple solution
that every State should have an equal representation in
the Senate, while in the lower house the people should
be represented according to numbers, and that house
should have the power to originate the revenue bills.
342 The Writings of [1885
Unquestionably, this arrangement has proved the con
servative balance-wheel of our Constitutional system for
nearly a century.
It was one of Franklin's favorite hobbies that the high
officers of the Government should serve without salaries.
But this was a point he could not carry. His efforts only
proved that even the strongest common-sense is sometimes
not without its crotchets. In the compromise of the Con
stitution concerning slavery he acquiesced, but before he
closed his eyes forever his venerable name and benignant
countenance appeared foremost among the champions
of the ant i- slavery cause. The first memorial against
slavery presented to the Congress of the United States
at its first session was signed by Benjamin Franklin as
President of the Abolition Society. It was an eloquent
document.
From a persuasion [it says] that equal liberty was originally
the portion and is still the birthright of all men, your me
morialists conceive themselves bound to use all justifiable en
deavors to loosen the bonds of slavery, and promote a general
enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these im
pressions, we earnestly entreat your serious attention to the
subject of slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance
the restoration to liberty of these unhappy men who alone,
in this land of freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage,
and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested
in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons
of our fellow-men.
A long debate arose in the House as to whether the petition
should be referred to a committee for consideration. By
a large majority it was so referred in spite of the heated
opposition led by Mr. Jackson of Georgia, who was the
first to formulate the pro-slavery argument which at a
later day became the staple of the discussion on that
1885] Carl Schurz 343
side of the question. In this cause Franklin's genius
flashed out once more in all its originality. Twenty-four
days before his death, at the age of eighty-four, he wrote for
the newspapers a humorous piece describing a debate in
the Divan of Algiers on the petition of a religious sect to
deliver the Christian slaves, putting all the arguments of a
champion of American slavery in the mouth of an advo
cate of the Algerian pirates who argued in favor of keeping
the Christian dogs in bondage. Here was once more, as
fresh as in his youthful days, the old quaintness of conceit,
the old delicate irony, the old kindly wit and humor,
illustrating the old strength of argument in a cause sacred
to his heart, a cause fit to inspire the last effort of a great
man. He died on the iyth of April, 1790.
His last years since his return from France were less
active than had been his wont. He began to feel that
the responsibility for what then happened belonged to a
generation younger than his. While he freely contrib
uted his wisdom to the movements of opinion then going
on, he felt also that he was somewhat entitled to rest and
might take his ease without any sense of neglected duty.
He expressed this in his own quaint manner when in a
letter he described his home life with his daughter and
grandchildren, saying:
Cards we sometimes play here, in long winter evenings ; but
it is as they play at chess, not for money, but for honor, or the
pleasure of beating one another. I have, indeed, now and then
a little compunction in reflecting that I spend time so idly ; but
another reflection comes to relieve me, whispering: ''You
know that the soul is immortal ; why then should you be such a
niggard of a little time, when you have all eternity before you? "
So, being easily convinced, and, like other reasonable creatures,
satisfied with a small reason when it is in favor of doing what I
have a mind to, I shuffle the cards again, and begin another
game.
344 The Writings of [1885
And well might he, without much compunction of
conscience, think of ease in his high old age, for few men
ever lived who made throughout their lives a more ar
duous and valuable use of their time. I know of no man
in history whose mind was more incessantly active and
more inexhaustibly fertile — not in abstract ideas and
creations of fancy — for his imagination was not remark
able — but in observing things and phenomena and men
and affairs and in drawing rapid conclusions from what he
observed, and in making those conclusions practically
useful. His was a wonderfully originating mind, not
dependent upon suggestions or impulse from others, but
seemingly always knowing what to do and doing it or
seeing it done. And almost all he thought or said or did
was calculated to do somebody some good.
I began by saying that no human being can study
Benjamin Franklin's life without drawing some valuable
lesson from it. There is a characteristic reason for this.
With all his greatness — we may look upon him as one of
the greatest men that ever lived — yet we find him so
essentially, sympathetically, lovably human, that every
human being feels near to him. There is in his greatness
nothing that repels, or even in the least discourages
approach.
He was full of human passion and frailty, like many
other people. He overcame them, not by working him
self up to lofty ethical abstractions, above the reach of the
common run of men, but by common-sense reflections,
which the most ordinary minds can understand and which
even natures of a coarse moral fiber can follow; and by
exertions of will, which everybody should be capable of.
He set out, not as a self-conscious, wonderful genius to do
great things, but as a clear, observing and active mind to do
useful things; and doing many useful things in a manner
intelligible to all, he became great.
Carl Schurz 345
The manner in which he conveyed his wisdom to the
ordinary mind also brought him near to common human
nature and ingratiated him with it. He not only knew what
human ignorance and weakness were; he not only never
looked haughtily and superciliously down on them ; but he
respected them and addressed them with sympathy. His
scientific writings were wonders of clearness and simplicity.
There was in them nothing of that affectation of scientific
mysteriousness indulged in by many who try to appear
profound by being unintelligible. He made philosophy
and science the plain, sensible, familiar friend and fire
side companion of everybody's life. The initiated reader
of his scientific writings is constantly astonished and
delighted to find how simple it all is. He never thought
of oppressing any one with demonstrations of mental
superiority. On the contrary, it was his constant en
deavor so to infuse his thoughts into his hearers, as to make
them feel that those thoughts were really their own.
This was with him not only a matter of instinct but a
well cultivated habit.
I made it a rule [he says in his autobiography] to forbear
all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others and all
positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself the use
of every word or expression that imported a fixed opinion,
such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted instead
of them / conceive, I apprehend or / imagine a thing to be
so and so. When another asserted anything that I thought
an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him
abruptly; and in answering I began by observing that in
certain circumstances his opinion might be right, but in the
present case there appeared to be some difference, etc. The
modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them
a readier reception and less contradiction. To this habit
(after my character for integrity) I think it principally owing
that I had early so much weight with my fellow-citizens when
346 The Writings of (1885
I proposed new institutions or alterations in the old, and so
much influence in public councils — for I was but a sad speaker.
Never eloquent, subject to much hesitation in my choice of
words, hardly correct in language, and yet I generally carried
my points.
It was the wonderful persuasiveness of the superior mind
which sympathetically identified itself with the inferior
understanding.
As a politician, a popular leader, a statesman, too, he
exercised his consummate faculty of identifying himself
in intellect and standpoint with those upon and through
whom he had to work. He never quarreled about trifles.
He avoided quarreling even about important things. He
never hated anybody except George III.
He was a successful man in his private affairs (and
showed by his example how one who began wretchedly
poor may accumulate enough to sustain a great and con
spicuous position in life), not by streaks of good luck or
any uncommon business enterprise or effort, but by
observing certain very ordinary rules of thrift, industry
and prudence, intelligible to all and, it might be said,
within the opportunities of almost all. It has been said
by some that his wisdom had been, after all, nothing but
the picayunish wisdom of the narrow-minded penny
saver and somewhat out of date now. Those who say
so forget that Franklin also taught how a fortune penu-
riously won may be generously risked or spent for great
ends; for the same Franklin unhesitatingly put his whole
fortune in jeopardy to help General Braddock in his ex
pedition; what to him was an enormous sum, he lent to
the Continental Congress, when the chances of the Ameri
can Revolution looked extremely uncertain. He offered
to make himself liable for the tea thrown into Boston
harbor, if thereby a just policy toward America could be
i885] Carl Schurz 347
secured; thus repeatedly placing his hard-earned fortune
at the service of his country.
He became a singularly happy man, so happy indeed
that he could say near the close of his life, — if he could live
it over again with some few changes he would like it,—
not by the mere favor of fortune, nor by a lofty philosophy
lifting him above the reach of disappointment and sorrow,
but by controlling those evil passions he had in common
with most others; by turning his faculties to the best
account for himself and his fellow-men; by never losing
sight of his wise maxim that " human felicity is produced
not so much by great pieces of good fortune that seldom
happen, as by little advantages that occur every day";
and by simply enjoying the pleasant things of this world,
freely and heartily, as other good people enjoyed them,
getting the fullest possible measure of them he could.
He was a virtuous man, earnestly, methodically so; but
his was not that straitlaced and forbidding kind of virtue
which looks with a stern and sour eye upon human weak
ness and at every worldly enjoyment and pleasure. His
was a thoroughly human, sympathetic, merry, lovable
virtue — a virtue that nobody would be afraid of and that
everybody would not only understand and esteem but
enjoy.
In one word, the manner in which he became good, use
ful, great and happy is so much within the reach of com
mon intelligence as well as common opportunities that,
studying it, scarcely any human being can fail to see in it
a great many suggestions which pointedly apply to his
own actual condition, and to feel the impulse of trying
something like this too, although perhaps in a much
smaller sphere and with much more modest mental
resources. And the mere attempt, if made with some
degree of earnestness, will be almost sure to produce some
good.
The Writings of [1885
It was at the time thought to be the highest praise that
could be conferred upon a man when Turgot, in his cele
brated epigram, said of Franklin: "Eripuit ccelo fulmen,
sceptrumque tyrannis " ("He snatched the lightning from
the heavens, and the scepter from the hand of the ty
rants"). In one respect this poetic compliment, however
great, was not large enough. For it might well be added
that Franklin also stripped science of its mystery and
virtue of its terrors.
He was the greatest of Americans; one of the great men
in history, and, with all his greatness, a most genuine
man of the people.
FROM HORACE WHITE
NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 1885.
Confidential.
My dear Schurz: My interview with Governor Cleveland
has left this impression on my mind ; that his present inclina
tion is to appoint Bayard, Secretary of State, Whitney, Secre
tary of Treasury, Garland, Attorney- General and J. Q.Adams, x
Postmaster-General or something else. He asked my opinion
of Trumbull without being led up to it by me in any way. So
I infer that he had had Trumbull in his mind for some time.
I did lead up to Adams, and he said that he had mentioned
Adams to some of his friends without, however, intending that
any inference should be drawn from it. Then he added that
the name of Adams would go a great way in any Cabinet and
that since J. Q. had been a consistent Democrat from the war
period down, no objection could be raised against him on that
score. He holds the same opinion of Judge Abbott that you
do and expressed it in almost the same words.
I used every argument that could be thought of against the
appointment of Whitney — in a temperate way of course. I
need not recapitulate them to you. He met them all with
counter-arguments, or rather he stated whatever was to be
1 Eldest son of Chas. Francis Adams, Sr.
Carl Schurz 349
stated on the other side. He may have done this for the
purpose of drawing me out and seeing how much I was opposed
to Whitney. I have considerable hope that when he comes out
of his comparative seclusion at Albany and meets real public
opinion, the present inclination of his mind — if I am right in
my interpretation of it — may be overborne.
His objections to Bayard as Secretary of the Treasury are
based upon Bayard's political affiliations in New York. His
(Bayard's) intimate associates, he says, are men who believe in
patronage as a means of political advancement and are as case-
hardened in this respect as Tom Platt, Geo. Bliss or Barney
Biglin. Bayard himself, he concedes, is above all such base
and paltry considerations, but he thinks that these men would,
nevertheless, have their way with him.
This is a matter which, of course, cannot be communicated
to Bayard himself. He is so high-mettled that he would sheer
the track at once and refuse to come within gunshot of the
Cabinet in any capacity, and I think we must try to land him
there even if the Treasury is bestowed elsewhere. I know that
Governor Cleveland wants him for Secretary of State, and
considering the present state of complication and bedevilment
in that quarter, it is worth an effort to get him there if the other
plan fails.
The first thing to be done is to keep Whitney out. Judge
Schoonmaker proposes Daniel Manning as a counter-nomina
tion. Manning is a banker, a man of good repute, much
better known to the country than Whitney, and a man of
experience. I should say that he would be one of the few men
left from whom the choice could be made, if Bayard is not
taken. D. Willis James is another. Hewitt would be an
excellent choice if his health were sufficient. But Manning
gave me to understand that he favored the appointment of
Whitney. Godkin had a talk with Stetson yesterday. Stet
son stated with great positiveness that Whitney was not a can
didate for the place, that he distrusted his own ability to fill it
and that if his (Whitney's) opinion were asked as to the fitness
of the appointment of himself, or anybody so little known to
the country as himself, he would say no. This is another
350 The Writings of [1885
puzzle! Most people would say that if this is his frame of
mind he can solve all difficulties and save the party from a
great risk by taking himself out of the way. Governor Cleve
land told me that he had not made a pledge to any human
being for a place in the Cabinet, or any other place, and that
he should not do so until he had consulted certain party leaders,
among whom he mentioned Carlisle and Lamar. He inquired
particularly how long you would be away and said that he
would have been extremely glad to see you at Albany but
could not blame you for not coming. I think that a letter
from you guided by the information which you now have
would be very useful. Of course it must not be known how
you have derived the information, although I do not consider
that I am violating any confidence in telling you things which
he would have told you if you had accepted his invitation to
call upon him at Albany.
Regarding the reappointment of Postmaster Pearson [of
New York] — the thing is quite feasible provided the Inde
pendents will signify in writing their desire for it. Curtis
objects to this, because it looks like a division of spoils — so
much for so much. That is, he objects to the "signing of
paper." He thinks that the appointment ought to be done
"out of hand, " as altogether the fittest thing to be done, etc.
Of course if that were practicable it would be the best thing.
But Governor Cleveland said that it might embarrass him in
other cases to reappoint Mr. Pearson on his own motion. A
multitude of other Republican postmasters would claim the
same consideration and it would be extremely difficult to deal
with them. Reasons as plenty as blackberries might exist for
their non-retention but it would be hard to make the public
understand them, etc.
I enclose you Curtis 's letter so that you may be fully pos
sessed of his views. My own opinion is that we cannot under
the circumstances refuse to "make it easy" for Governor
Cleveland to do what we desire in the premises although it may
be well to have the paper signed by Ottendorfer, Hewitt and
some other leading Democrats. Mr. Ottendorfer told me
that he would cordially cooperate if Democratic cooperation
1885] Carl Schurz 351
were desirable. I should qualify all this by saying that
Governor Cleveland did not promise to reappoint Mr. Pearson,
but indicated that his personal inclination lay that way.
Governor Cleveland is strongly opposed to the silver coinage,
and from some remarks which he made I infer that he has no
liking for the pending treaties.
The impression I got of Governor Cleveland is that he is an
honest, true-hearted, single-minded man, who has mastered
the civil service question and is inflexible in his intention to
carry out that reform in the spirit of his recent letter, but that
as to the great mass of National questions, which will come up
for daily treatment, his information is extremely defective and
that he is liable to make many and even serious mistakes
unless his daily advisers and associates are men of experience,
training and proved political ability.
P.S. Please write me what you think of Curtis 's
objections.
TO SILAS W. BURT
NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 1885.
In reply to your question as to how the appointment of
Mr. Daniel Manning as Secretary of the Treasury would
strike me, I have to say that while I think the appoint
ment could be defended I do not think that it would be
considered, either in the Democratic party or out of it,
as " put ting the best foot foremost." What Governor
Cleveland wants is not a Cabinet that can be defended
but one that commends itself affirmatively and strongly
to intelligent public opinion. The opinion that is formed
of the Administration during the first sixty days will
be the governing opinion of the succeeding three years
and ten months.
My opinion of Mr. Manning, derived from a single in
terview with him, is altogether favorable, and this opin
ion has been confirmed by all that I have learned from
others; but he is not one of the three or four foremost
352 The Writings of [1885
men in the Democratic party. The Treasury Depart
ment should be given to one of these foremost men.
So also should the State and Interior. The party is not
yet out of the woods. It is not in a position to take
risks. Its majorities in the pivotal States are narrow and
uncertain. It is under the necessity of doing its very
best and of seeming to do so.
The three men of widest and solidest reputation in the
Democratic party who may be considered available for
Cabinet places are Thurman, Bayard and McDonald.
These are the men who have come to the front by ten
years' competitive examination and this is proved by the
fact that they stood next to Mr. Cleveland at the Chicago
Convention.
In my judgment a Democratic Cabinet, in this time of
trial, should contain all of these men. A Cabinet which
did not contain any one of them would not look much
like a Democratic Administration. Unless some of the
"old hard heads" — the men of experience, and of reputa
tion gained in the combats of the forum and in the com
petition of statecraft — are found in the Administration
there will be no certainty about anything. Intentions
may be ever so good, yet the public will never be reason
ably sure of what will be done in any given emergency.
Mr. Manning has had little more experience with National
legislation and administration than Governor Cleveland
himself. His reputation is that of a politician rather than
of a statesman — a politician of the better class, indeed,
but still coming short of what ought to be expected in an
office which will be in some sense the keynote of the
Administration. The Departments of State and Treasury
should be filled by men of whom it will be generally said
by intelligent and observing persons in all parts of the
country, "We know where to find them; their characters
are established, their mettle has been proved, their
Carl Schurz 353
intelligence and capacity have been tested.'* This is
rather more than can be said of Mr. Manning. I have
made some inquiries down-town concerning him and I
have met almost everywhere the response: "We know
nothing of Mr. Manning except as a shrewd politician."
Mr. Hewitt, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Bayard are known
for the possession of statesmanlike qualities and of well
defined ideas of financial principles. If Mr. Bayard should
for any reason not have the State Department I think
Mr. Thurman would be the next best man.
The factions in Ohio and Indiana need not deter Gover
nor Cleveland from going into those States for Cabinet
officers if he really desires to do so.
One glimpse of the shillelah in his hands will soothe
all the factions to silence. Thurman bestrides the fac
tions in his State like a colossus. Both intellectually and
morally he overshadows all his compeers in Ohio. Mc
Donald holds a corresponding position in Indiana and
is well entitled to it.
If it be said that both these men and Mr. Bayard are
Presidential candidates, the answer is that if Mr. Cleve
land's Administration proves a success he will himself be
the chief beneficiary and will certainly be reflected. If
it is not a success no Democrat will be elected in 1888.
Those things should be left to settle themselves. To take
a man into the Cabinet or to leave him out because he
may or may not have aspirations for the Presidency would
be taking a lower and narrower view of the situation than
I think Governor Cleveland capable of. It will be safe
for him to assume that every Congressman and every
governor of a State and nearly all members of the State
legislatures have aspirations of this sort and that it will
be quite impossible for him to get a Cabinet which will
be free from them. The ambition is laudable and I would
not give much for a Cabinet destitute of it.
VOL. IV. — 23
354 The Writings of [1885
As I have already said, I think Mr. Manning's appoint
ment as Secretary of the Treasury could be defended but
it would require a good deal of explanation.
I do not understand what is meant by the phrases
"an old men's Cabinet" and "a young men's Cabinet."
What is wanted is public confidence. If this is gained,
the years of the [members of the] Cabinet will make no
difference.
TO GROVER CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 1885.
The more I think of it the more does it seem to me that
your inaugural is a matter of uncommon importance—
that it should rise as far as possible above the perfunctory
commonplace of such occasions and speak with the voice
of leadership to the political forces behind you, to give
them impulse and direction. My impression now is
even stronger than it was at the time I wrote the notice
I left with you, that the principal questions before the
country should be mentioned in your first official utter
ance, succinctly but at the same time with a certain
statesmanlike comprehensiveness. The moment of your
accession to power is an epoch in the history of this Repub
lic, and much depends upon the first effect produced by
it upon the public mind. All of which is respectfully
submitted.
I have been thinking over the names you mentioned
to me yesterday in connection with the Cabinet, and it
has occurred to me that while the three Southern men
among them are all United States Senators of renown and
experience, the Northern men named are all new men,
nationally speaking, that is, men without experience and
established standing in National affairs. This circum
stance may, perhaps, not be looked upon as one of vital
1885] Carl Schurz 355
consequence but it might be worth considering in making
your final arrangements.
TO L. Q. C. LAMAR'
NEW YORK, Mar. 2, 1885.
Horace White and George Jones of the Times informed
me that President Cleveland had offered a place in the
Cabinet to Mr. Whitney, and that it had been accepted.
White telegraphed a remonstrance to Albany to be pre
sented to Mr. Cleveland and he also wrote to Bayard,
making me promise that I would write to you. I do so,
somewhat reluctantly, because I detest complaining. But
it seems necessary in this instance.
We Independents have taken upon us a certain re
sponsibility with regard to the coming Administration.
We have promised our followers an era of reform and
high-minded government.
Mr. Manning's selection for the Treasury Department
is to us a terrible load to carry. He has no standing in
National affairs. He has, justly or unjustly, the repu
tation of a machine politician, whose elevation to the
most powerful place in the Cabinet is widely regarded,
among our own people, as a reward for political services
rendered and as an encouragement for further political
services to be rendered. This imputation may be all
unjust, but it will be, indeed it is now, pretty generally
accepted. This is a fact which no amount of explanatory
talk can change ; and this fact will deprive the Administra
tion of a very large part of its moral credit and the popu
lar confidence. The appointment of Mr. Whitney added
will deprive it of most of the rest. I am not personally
acquainted with that gentleman, having seen him only
1 Prospective Secretary of the Interior.
356 The Writings of [1885
once. He may be an honest and a clever man, but he has
still less of national standing than Mr. Manning. The
only reputation he has, is that he is Senator Payne's son-
in-law, the brother-in-law of the Standard Oil Company,
worth several millions, and that he last fall contributed
$25,000 to Mr. Cleveland's campaign fund. These are his
only distinctions. Aside from these he is only known as
a politician on a small scale.
These two gentlemen appear in Mr. Cleveland's Cabinet
as the men he brought with him ; as his confidential friends
and advisers, and as the leading spirits of the "reform
Administration." Not only the opposition will represent
it so, but so it will seem to a large majority of the people
who elected Mr. Cleveland.
They will ask: What merit is there in Mr. Whitney
that would entitle him to be a member of the Govern
ment? What motive can have prompted his appoint
ment? Is it to pay for his campaign contribution? Is
the Standard Oil Company behind him? Is it not known
to the President, that one of the most scandalous and
alarming signs of the times consists in the invasion of the
Senate by millionaires who have no distinction but their
money? Is it the business of a "reform Administration"
to invite the millionaire who has no other distinction
than his money, also into the Cabinet? These questions
will be asked. What answer can we give to the patriotic
men who followed our lead? Shall we speak of the Presi
dent's good intentions? Facts are stronger arguments
than the intentions observed by them. There can be no
doubt about it, if these things are done, the moral credit
of the Administration, with our people at least, will be
gone. It will require years to recover it, if it can ever be
recovered. An Administration with such leading spirits
will not be trusted. And thus the great opportunity for
the "cooperation of the best elements," which we have
Carl Schurz 357
long been wishing and working for, is recklessly thrown
away. You can imagine how I feel when I think of this
after the struggles I have gone through.
When I saw Mr. Cleveland I gave the best interpreta
tion to what passed between us. What has since happened
makes that interview appear in a different light. When
speaking of Mr. Manning I said that it was a mistake to
take into a Cabinet a personal friend for the purpose of
having a confidential man there; that thus jealousy and
ill-feeling were created; that he would soon find all high-
minded men in his Cabinet deserving of equal confidence,
and that no arrangement should be made indicating that
such was not his expectation. He disclaimed this with
regard to Mr. Manning. But not a word was said by him
of his intention of appointing Mr. Whitney. Had that
name been mentioned I should have told him frankly all
the objections that I have written you of, and I should
have added that, such selections left the regard due to
the men of national standing in the Cabinet somewhat
out of view, that, had there been such a combination
of confidential home-politicians, such a germ of clique-
business and intrigue in the Hayes Cabinet when I was
invited into it I should have considered it due to my self-
respect to decline the invitation. Indeed, you will vainly
look for just such a couple of appointments from the
President's own State in the history of Cabinets.
I have reason to believe that the selection of Mr.
Whitney was contemplated, if not resolved upon, by Mr.
Cleveland when I saw him, and that he withheld the
information from me because he did not want to discuss it.
But Mr. Whitney's selection had been warmly protested
against by Independents when his name was mentioned
before, and Mr. Cleveland was well aware how distaste
ful that selection would be to them. Immediately after
the election expressions of Democratic gratitude to the
358 The Writings of [1885
Independents were loud and gushing. We declined all
reward. We wanted only a Government we could confide
in. But now I may say that, as to the arrangement of the
Administration, everything we especially recommended in
that respect was refused, and everything we especially
objected to, was done. And surely those recommenda
tions as well as objections were in the highest degree
unselfish, modest and reasonable.
If the Cabinet is formed as intended, a majority of
the rank and file of the Independents, disappointed and
distrustful, will, I apprehend, quietly find their way back
to their old associations. Those of the leaders who are, as
journalists, obliged to speak, will also be obliged to criti
cise severely, if they want to keep the confidence of their
readers. I, for my part, unwilling to denounce and unable
to defend, shall lapse into silence, consider myself dis
credited with my constituency, dismissed from the politi
cal field and relegated to private pursuits. Is it not a
singular fate? My cooperation with Democrats for good
ends leaves me strange experiences. When I had to bolt
from my party in Missouri for the purpose of restoring the
ballot to the disfranchised "rebel sympathizers," I was
first praised by them to the skies, and then they used those
very ballots to drive me out of the Senate and to put one
of their own men in my seat. And now when I have
exposed myself to the bitterest hatred and vindictiveness
of the party from which I received all my public honors,
for the purpose of inaugurating an era of reform and high-
minded politics, I find myself, by the very first act of those
so put into power, discredited, if not made ridiculous, in the
eyes of those who followed my lead, and virtually driven
from the field of political activity and influence.
Do not misunderstand me. This is no case of personal
grievance. I have none. I want nothing. The Admin
istration could offer me nothing that would have the least
1885] Carl Schurz 359
value to me. But I do not want to see the great aims
long and faithfully fought for, recklessly compromised.
I do not want to see this great chance for a fruitful working
together of the best political elements thrown away to
gratify a few politicians. Do not deceive yourself. Your
Administration can do little without the confidence of
public opinion. It would have that confidence in the
highest degree with a Cabinet of statesmen, and will
lose it with such confidential advisers surrounding the
President.
You may ask why I did not address this letter to Mr.
Cleveland. Because not speaking to me about Mr.
Whitney's appointment indicated that he did not want me
to speak to him about it. I still take him to be an honest
and well-meaning man; but I fear he is already under
dangerous influences. I write to you because I think you
and Bayard may still do much to save the coming Ad
ministration from moral discredit and yourselves from
constant embarrassment and mortification in it. You
might very properly do this : Ask Mr. Cleveland pointedly
whether the Cabinet so constituted has the confidence of
the Independents, and whether it will not be well that
relations of frank confidence with the Independents be
maintained. If he says that this Cabinet has the con
fidence of the Independents you may safely answer that
he is grossly deceived. If a letter is mentioned written by
Mr. George Jones of the Times complimentary to Mr.
Whitney, you will find that this letter was obtained under
circumstances which Mr. Jones would probably like to
have inquired into. At any rate, it would not be out of
the way to insist that the feelings of the Independents
concerning this Cabinet be first directly and authentically
ascertained.
This letter is for you only — of course, I suppose, you
may feel it necessary to discuss what I say with Bayard.
360 The Writings of [1885
But I pour myself out to you in the confidence of friend
ship. Your opportunities and responsibilities are great.
See to it that you do not start in an unsea worthy bottom.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, March 21, 1885.
My dear Mr. President: Pardon me for asking the
favor of a moment's attention. When I had the honor
of an interview with you at Albany, I received, from
what you said to me, the impression that you were
strongly inclined to reappoint Mr. Pearson. ' The ques
tion you asked me whether it was proper and customary
to renominate such an officer before the expiration of
his term, suggested the inference that the reappoint-
ment of Mr. Pearson would be one of your first offi
cial acts. What I heard from your more confidential
friends strengthened that impression and inference as to
your intentions. Reports received from Washington, and
still more the circumstance that Mr. Pearson's term has
been permitted to expire without his reappointment, have
created an apprehension that the matter is in doubt.
My name does not appear upon a single petition or
recommendation for any appointment in your gift. I
believe most, if not all, of the Independents who took an
active part in the late campaign have followed the same
line of conduct. If I, in accord with them, now say a
word to you in behalf of the reappointment of Postmaster
Pearson, it is not on account of any personal interest in
him — for he is a stranger to me — but because his case is
a representative, not an individual, one. We speak not
for a person but for a public cause.
As you have permitted me to believe, it is your opinion
1 The postmaster of N. Y. City.
1885] Carl Schurz 361
no less than mine that to keep in place, or to reappoint,
without regard to party affiliation, officers who have been
conspicuously efficient in the discharge of their duties,
who have maintained a good general character and who
have not meddled with party politics beyond the ordinary
exercise of a citizen's right, is a good rule, in fact a rule
demanded by the public interest. That the enforcement
of such a rule will greatly add to the character and effi
ciency of the service is self-evident, for it will teach all
public officers that the best possible performance of their
official duties without partisan service will give them an
excellent claim to be retained in place even if there be a
change of party in power, — and that no other claim can be
depended on. It is equally clear that without the es
tablishment of such a rule the public service will never
become a non-partisan service, but will always have a
strong tendency to degenerate into a party machine,
periodical "new ideals" being the regular order. If upon
the expiration of the term of every Republican officeholder
you put a Democrat in his place, the whole service, outside
of the comparatively small number of subordinate places
covered by the civil service law and a few other exceptions,
will, at the end of your Presidential term, be essentially,
and purposely, a Democratic service; and if then the
Republicans win, they will only have to follow your ex
ample to make it an essentially Republican service again,
and so on and on. But if you establish and follow the
rule above indicated, reappointing a Republican here and
there on account of proved fitness, you will have made a
precedent which no succeeding Administration can afford
to disregard, and thus you will have conferred a great and
lasting benefit upon the Republic.
The reappointment of Mr. Pearson is in this respect
regarded as a test of your policy, and it is only in this
sense that I address you in its behalf. I need scarcely
362 The Writings of [1885
add that the failure of your Administration to adopt this
rule and to illustrate it by keeping Mr. Pearson in place
would disappoint the hopes of those of your supporters
who have the success of your endeavors to reform abuses
and to purify the political atmosphere most earnestly at
heart. They cordially appreciate the noble resistance
you have offered to the pressure of the spoils politicians,
and they would be much pained at seeing that record
blurred, and the cause they have in common with you
compromised, by an act calculated to render uncertain,
or at least more difficult, your complete success. It is
generally believed, although you never made a pledge to
that effect, that you went to Washington with the in
tention of reappointing Mr. Pearson. It was generally
expected, by friend and foe, that this intention would be
carried out. If now, in spite of your own inclination to
do a thing so good in itself and so beneficial in its conse
quences, and in spite of an overwhelming sentiment in its
favor among the business community here, regardless of
party, and among the friends of reform throughout the
country, considerations of a partisan character should
after all outweigh all this, and thus maintain their as
cendancy, keeping the field open for a future revival of
spoils politics, the disappointment would indeed be great.
But it would be a disappointment not only to many of
your friends, — the result would disappoint you too. It
would greatly encourage, but by no means satisfy, the
office-hunters and patronage-dealers. By encouraging
them it would bring them down upon you with new ex
pectations and more exacting demands. With these de
mands you would not be able to comply without giving
up your whole reform policy. And by refusing them you
exasperate the spoilsmen in the Democratic party just as
much as by appointing hundreds of Pearsons. Noth
ing will satisfy them but a complete surrender. Half a
1885] Carl Schurz 363
reform will make those people just as much your enemies
as a whole reform, but it will not make you half as strong
with the most patriotic and enlightened class of citizens.
The approval of public opinion is always the principal
strength of any reform Administration, and it will in a
great measure depend upon the completeness of the reform
policy. This has been the experience of all Administra
tions which made attempts in that direction. But owing
to your splendid record and the fact that your perform
ances have always gone beyond your formal promises,
public expectation is now higher than it has ever been
before.
The importance of the subject and my deep interest
in it will, I hope, serve as an excuse for the earnestness
of my language.
FROM PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, March 23, 1885.
My dear Sir: Your letter of [day before] yesterday is
received.
Mr. Pearson's term expired, I believe, less than twenty-four
hours ago.
I have had many things to consider and act upon, of the
first importance and which admitted of no delay.
I hope you fully appreciate that the subject broached in
your letter gives rise to many anxious reflections.
There are official documents and papers on file in the Post-
Office Department, which relate to the subject, and which
having been presented to me have perplexed and troubled me.
May I say that I want to do just the right thing, and at the
same time gratify a host of kind friends and good men of
whom you are an honored representative?
I take up my burden every morning and carry it as well as I
can till night, and frequently up-hill.
364 The Writings of [1885
Your letter has produced a profound impression upon me as
indicating the wishes of a friend and ally who has a right to
insist upon the recognition you ask.
And yet I know you would think but little of me, if convinced
that I would do a wrong thing, simply because you, in igno
rance of the facts involved, asked it.
I hope I shall be led in the right path.
Yours very sincerely,
GROVER CLEVELAND.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, March 26, 1885.
I have just received your kind note of the 23d inst.
and hasten to remove a wrong impression which my letter
seems to have produced. It is that it "indicated the
wishes of a friend and ally who had a right to insist upon
the recognition he asks. " Nothing could be farther from
my mind than to insist upon a "recognition." The
practice of recognizing persons by the use of official trust
for political or personal services rendered, is on the con
trary one of the practices I have frequently denounced
as dangerous. What I want to see recognized is not a
person but the public interest. But above all, I trust
there is nothing in my letter in the remotest degree open to
the construction that I could possibly want you to do a
wrong thing simply because I asked it. I should be sorry
if such a thought has crossed your mind. I argued in
favor of Mr. Pearson's reappointment only upon public
grounds, believing him to be a true exponent of those
principles upon which the public service should be con
ducted, and that by his reappointment the public interest
would be greatly benefited. If there are facts in your
possession showing that Mr. Pearson is not the kind of
man we took him to be, or that by his reappointment the
public interest will not be served, I should be the last
1885] Carl Schurz 365
man on earth to desire that reappointment. I should
openly applaud his rejection.
But in that event, permit me to suggest, the Adminis
tration would owe it to itself as well as to the public, to
let it be understood what the real reasons for Mr. Pearson's
rejection were. This is no ordinary case. It has been
widely and with unusual interest discussed in the press as
well as in private. The friends of civil service reform have
earnestly advocated this reappointment because it would
greatly advance the cause they have at heart. The spoils
politicians in the Democratic party oppose it because they
do not want that reform. Your enemies in the Demo
cratic party and the more unscrupulous Elaine men wish
it should not be done because they do not want you to
have the credit of it and do want to spite the Independents.
Among the best class of citizens it has been generally
expected as the proper thing. If it is not done, the naked
fact of Mr. Pearson's rejection would be understood by the
public as a victory of the partisan spirit which opposes
your principles over the public spirit which upholds them.
This would be deplorable. Nothing but public know
ledge of the facts in Mr. Pearson's career which rendered
his rejection necessary will remove that impression. We
here have been led to believe that the charges made against
Mr. Pearson under the last Administration were a mere
flimsy contrivance on the part of a Republican faction to
get rid of a good public servant because they could not use
him — just the reason why a true reform Administration
would insist upon keeping him. That contrivance did
not seem to Mr. Arthur sufficient to serve even as a decent
excuse for Mr. Pearson's removal. The matter would
have to appear, of course, in an aspect far more grave to
cause his rejection now. The worst thing for the char
acter of the Administration would be the use of insufficient
charges against Mr. Pearson as a mere pretext ; the next
366 The Writings of [1885
worst thing, his rejection for partisan reasons frankly
avowed; the best thing, his reappointment if his record
is found good, or, if not, a frank avowal of the reasons
which compelled his rejection. Those reasons being
sufficient, they will be most promptly and heartily ap
proved by those who most earnestly advocated Mr.
Pearson's reappointment.
I need scarcely add that this would not in any sense
invalidate the arguments I had the honor to submit to
you for keeping in place some unobjectionable Republi
can officers so that the way for the establishment of a
non-partisan service be opened.
Pardon me for a general remark upon the relations, as I
conceive them, between the Independents and your Ad
ministration. That remark is called forth by what you
say of "insisting upon a recognition." The support we
gave you in the campaign was a free offering. The sugges
tions we occasionally venture upon now are a free offering
again — the latter, of course, to be presented only as long
as welcome. We supported you because we thought so to
serve the public good. We try to advise you to the same
end. I will not deny that there is now one feeling of a
somewhat selfish character in all this, but only one. It is
that we want to get as the product of our work as much
public good as possible. We wish that at the close of
your Administration we may stand fully justified before
ourselves and before the country, and speak with pride
of the results of what we have done. We wish also that
by your success our influence upon public opinion for the
public good may be strengthened — as it would certainly
be very much weakened by your failure. This is all
the recognition we want. And in this sense let me say
again, that your success will be all the more certain and
complete, the more consistent, far-seeing and thorough
your Administration is in its reform policy.
Carl Schurz 367
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, March 31, 1885.
Permit me to congratulate you and the country upon the
fact that the result of your inquiry into Mr. Pearson's
case enabled you to carry out your original intention
of reappointing him. The inauguration of the policy of
which this reappointment is so conspicuous an illustration
is certain to be of immense benefit to the Republic. The
friends of reform all over the country are, of course, very
much rejoiced, and if there is some dissatisfaction among
certain classes of Democrats, there are many others, and,
I am sure, a much larger number, who heartily applaud
the patriotic and courageous step you have taken.
The contrast between the reappointment of Mr. Pear
son and the appointment of Mr. Higgins in the Treasury
Department, as to their reception by public opinion,
cannot fail to strike you as very significant. The former
has exalted your name, greatly strengthened your Ad
ministration in the confidence of the people and pointed
out to your party the path of honor, usefulness and
strength. The latter has called forth indignant protests
from most respectable quarters, served to create distrust
in those who made the selection, embittered the faction
fights in the party, been defended only by way of awkward
apology and will be a constant source of trouble and
mortification while it is permitted to stand, which I pray
may not be long.
So you will always find it in similar cases. I fervently
hope that your career as President will be full of such
experiences as the first, and that it may be altogether
spared a repetition of the second. A steadfast adherence
to the policy exemplified by Mr. Pearson's reappointment
will not fail to ensure this happy result.
368 The Writings of (1885
THE NEW SOUTH
Introduction
Twice during the last twenty years I had occasion to
travel extensively over the Southern States, and to be
come acquainted with their condition. In 1865, a few
months after the close of the civil war, I visited all of
them, except Texas and Florida, and last winter all of
them, except Mississippi. Each time I came into contact
with a great many persons of all shades of social position
and of political opinion. I improved my opportunities
of inquiry and observation to the best of my ability. My
object was, not to verify the correctness of preconceived
notions, but to gain, by impartial investigation, a true
view of things. Of the view thus obtained these pages
are to give a brief and plain account.
C. S.
NEW YORK, April, 1885.
In 1865, immediately after the close of the civil war,
Southern society presented the spectacle of what might
be called a state of dissolution. The Southern armies
had just been disbanded, and the soldiers, after four
years of fierce fighting, had returned home to shift for
themselves. The Southern country was utterly exhausted
by the war. Even where there had been no actual de
vastation, the product of labor had, ever since the spring
of 1 86 1, been mostly devoted to the support of armies in
the field — that is, economically speaking, wasted. The
money in the hands of the people had become entirely
valueless. Thus the people were fearfully impoverished.
The slaves, who had constituted almost the whole agri
cultural working force of the South, had been set free all
at once. The first and very natural impulse of a large
number of them was to test their freedom by quitting
1885] Carl Schurz 369
work and wandering away from the plantations. The
country roads swarmed with them, and with a vague an
ticipation of a great jubilee they congregated in the towns.
Thus the South was not only in distress and want, but
the complete breaking up of the old labor-system and the
difficulty of getting to work on a new basis made the pros
pect of recovery extremely dark. The negroes behaved on
the whole very good-naturedly. There were few, if any,
criminal excesses on their part, except pig and chicken
stealing. But the negro did not yet know what to do with
his freedom, and the whites had not yet learned how to
treat the negroes as freemen. The former masters were
easily infuriated at the new airs of their former slaves,
and resorted to all sorts of means to make them work.
A great many acts of violence were committed by whites
on blacks. But for the interposition of the National
power much more blood would have flown, and the
South might have become the theater of protracted
and disastrous convulsions. The Freedmen's Bureau,
an institution which subsequently became discredited
by abuses creeping into it, did at the beginning most
valuable service in evolving some order from the prevail
ing chaos, and in preventing more serious catastrophes.
The passions of the war were still burning fiercely, and
the restored Union, which manifested itself to the defeated
Southerners only in the shape of victorious "Yankee
soldiers'* and liberated negro slaves, was at that time
still heartily detested.
The contrast between the condition of things existing
then and that existing now, cannot well be appreciated
without a review of the developments which have brought
it forth. No greater misfortune could, in my opinion,
have happened to the South at that time than the death
of Mr. Lincoln. He was the only man who, taking the
perplexing problem of reconstruction into his hand, would
VOL. IV.— «4
370 The Writings of [1885
have stood between the North and the South, looked up
to with equal confidence by both. His moderation and
charity would not have aroused suspicion at the North,
nor would his tenacity of purpose with regard to emanci
pation and the rights of the negro have appeared vindic
tive to the South. He could have prevented the passions
of the war from disturbing the work of peace. While
thus President Lincoln would have been the best man for
the business of reconstruction, President Johnson was,
perhaps, the worst imaginable. During and immediately
after the war his uppermost thought was that treason
must be made odious by punishing the traitors. But a
few months after his accession to the Presidency he in
sisted with equal vehemence that the government of the
late insurgent States, then in a state of dangerous con
fusion, must be virtually turned over to the same class of
men whom but recently he had denounced as traitors fit
to be hanged. His ill-balanced mind was incapable of
seeing that what might be wisdom some time afterwards,
was folly then. The passionate temper with which he
plunged into a bitter quarrel with Congress and the
Republican party about these questions produced two
most unfortunate effects. The minds of Southern men
were turned away from the only thing that could put
them on the road of peace, order and new prosperity,
namely, a prompt and sincere accommodation of their
thoughts and endeavors to the new order of things. They
were made to delude themselves instead with the false
hope of reversing in some way the emancipation of the
slaves, at least partially, by legislative contrivances—
their false hopes begetting false efforts in many directions,
and these efforts leading to bitter, futile and wasteful
struggles, which the poor South might and should have
been spared. And secondly, Mr. Johnson's proceedings
made the Northern people seriously afraid of a disloyal
1885] Carl Schurz 371
pro-slavery reaction in the South. He irritated the ma
jority in Congress by defiant demonstrations, and thus he
caused the most intricate problem of the time to become
the subject of a passionate party broil, which seemed to
render men heedless as to the consequences of their doings.
The Republican majority in Congress, thinking itself
betrayed by the President, went faster and farther in
their measures to protect the rights of the freedmen, and
to procure loyal majorities in the Southern States, than
they might have thought necessary to do had they not
distrusted the Executive. And, on the other hand, Mr.
Johnson, by intemperate utterances, stirred up opposition
in the South to the measures enacted by Congress. Negro
suffrage was introduced, instantaneous and general, thus
thrusting a mass of ignorance as an active element into the
body politic, while at the same time a large number of
those who had taken a more or less prominent part in the
rebellion, constituting the bulk of the property and in
telligence of the South, were disfranchised and debarred
from active participation in public affairs.
I do not say this to criticise the reconstruction meas
ures in general. I have always believed that they were
adopted from good motives and for good purposes; that
in the light of history some of them appear ill-judged,
but that reconstruction was one of those tangled prob
lems in solving which any policy that may be adopted
will in some way bring forth unsatisfactory consequences,
and in some respects look like a mistake. Here were a
number of insurgent communities just reconquered by
force of arms; in them four millions of negroes liberated
from slavery by the Government against the will of their
former masters; that former master class exasperated
by defeat and material distress, and face to face with the
former slaves; these elements, with a fierce and apparently
irreconcilable antagonism between them, to be brought
372 The Writings of [1885
into peaceful and mutually beneficial relations under a
new order of things, so that the weaker might be per
manently safe in the presence of the stronger. That
was the perplexing task to be accomplished. Was it to
be done by the constant interposition of a superior power?
That would have been putting off indefinitely the res
toration of local self-government in the Southern States.
Was it to be done by at once restoring the States to their
functions, leaving all the political power in them exclus
ively in the hands of the whites? That would have been
surrendering the late slaves, emancipated by the act of
the National Government, helpless to the mercy of their
former masters, whose natural desire at the time was to
reduce them to slavery again. Was it to be done by
arming the late slaves with political rights so as to give
them the means of self -protect ion, and by curtailing at
the same time the political rights of the late master-class,
so as to weaken their means of aggression? That would
expose those States to all the evils of a rule of ignorance.
Thus neither of these systems, nor any mixing of them,
could in all respects have worked satisfactorily as to
immediate consequences. But here I have to do only
with actual results.
The great mass of negro voters fell promptly into the
hands of more or less selfish and unscrupulous leaders,
and the scandals of the so-called carpet-bag governments
followed. The Southern whites might, perhaps, have ex
ercised a stronger influence for good upon the negroes
had they at once frankly and cordially accepted the new
order of things. But the old passions and prejudices did
not yield so quickly, and, moreover, I repeat, President
Johnson's ill-advised doings had inspired them with de
lusive hopes of some sort of reaction. It would be wrong
to class all who during that period — from the close of the
war until 1877 — acted as Republican leaders in the South
Carl Schurz 373
among the demagogues and scoundrels. There were
very honorable and patriotic men among them. But, on
the whole, .the corruption and public robbery going on
under those governments can hardly be exaggerated. A
mimicry of legislation, carried on by negroes, in part
moderately educated, in part mere plantation hands, and
led in many cases by adventurers bent upon rilling their
pockets quickly — that was for years what they had of
government in several Southern States.
This, of course, could not last long. A change was
sure to come. Unfortunately, the carpet-bag govern
ments were, in a measure, sustained by party spirit in
Congress, while, on the other hand, the reaction against
them in the South took a lawless character. The Ku-Klux
organization was first started for the suppression of dis
order, and then became itself an element of lawlessness.
Efforts were made to overcome the negro majorities by
terrorism. Negroes who were politically active, suffered
cruel maltreatment. A good many murders occurred.
No doubt, of the " Southern outrage" stories, some were
manufactured for political effect in the North, but others
were unquestionably founded on truth. When the Na
tional Government ceased to uphold the carpet-bag gov
ernments by force of arms, the "Southern outrages" of
the bloody kind gradually ceased. But the efforts to
keep the negroes from exercising political control con
tinued, although by different means. Force was sup
planted by ruse. In some places negro majorities were
overcome by tissue ballots. In others, registration was
made difficult. In others, the voting places were so ar
ranged as to put the negroes at a disadvantage. In
others, where many offices were voted for at the same
time, it was provided by law that there should be a sepa
rate ballot-box for each office, and that ballots put by
voters into the wrong boxes should not be counted, the
374 The Writings of
effect of which was that persons unable to read, and thus
to identify the boxes, would be apt to lose their votes — an
arrangement working somewhat like a disqualification of
illiterates. In still other places efforts were made to influ
ence the negro vote as it is influenced here and there in
the North. Thus, while at the beginning of the recon
struction period the negroes were enfranchised and a
large number of whites disfranchised by law, which
brought forth Republican majorities and the carpet-bag
governments, subsequently the negro vote was in a large
measure neutralized, first by force and then by trickery,
thus, by means wrong in themselves and eventually de
moralizing in effect, making Democratic majorities to put
an end to the carpet-bag governments, prevent the re
turn of negro domination and secure honesty in the ad
ministration of public affairs.
There has been, concerning these facts, much crimination
and recrimination between the North and the South, partly
just and partly unjust. "By your reconstruction acts,"
said the South, "you subjected us to the rule of ignorant
and brutal negroes led by rapacious adventurers, who
mercilessly plundered us at the time when the South,
exhausted and impoverished, was most in need of intelli
gent and honest government." "We could not help
that," answered the North, "for we were in justice
bound not to leave the emancipated negro helpless at the
mercy of his former master; we had to arm him with
rights, and if you had been in our places, you, as an hon
orable people, would have been bound to do, and would
have done, the same thing." "You have terrorized
voters," said the North, "and controlled the ballot-box
by force and fraud, and thus got political power which
did not belong to you." "We could not help that,"
answered the South, "for the government of combined
ignorance and rapacious rascality stripped us naked, and
Carl Schurz 375
threatened us with complete ruin. No people could have
endured this. We had to get rid of negro domination at
any cost, and if you had been in our places you would
have done the same thing."
While this discussion was going on, a non-political but
most powerful influence asserted itself. The Southern
people got to work again. Immediately after the war
the average Southerner was laboring under the impres
sion that the emancipation of the slaves had brought the
whole economic machinery of the South to a complete
standstill, and that, unless some system of compulsory
labor were restored, there was nothing but starvation and
ruin in the future. Encouraged by President Johnson's
erratic manifestations, he made all sorts of reactionary
attempts, but failed. He had, after all, to try what
could be done under the new order of things, and he
did try. Gradually he discovered that the negro as a free
man would work better than had been anticipated. He
discovered also that white men could, and under the pres
sure of circumstances would, do many kinds of work to
which formerly they had not taken kindly and readily.
As work proved productive, hope revived, and with
hope, energy and enterprise. The Southern man became
aware that his salvation did not depend upon a reversal
of the new order of things, but upon a wise development
of it. He found that this new order of things was opening
new opportunities and calling into action new ener
gies. So his thoughts were more and more withdrawn
from the past, with its struggles and divisions and resent
ments, and turned upon the present and future with their
common interests, hopes and aspirations. While the
professional politicians of the two sections were still
storming at one another, the farmers, and the merchants,
and the manufacturers, and the professional men, had
found something else to occupy their minds. Many of
376 The Writings of [1885
them came into contact with Northern people and met
there with a much friendlier feeling than they had antici
pated. It dawned upon them that this was, after all, a
good country to live in, and a good government to live
under, and a good people to live with. And it is this
sentiment, grown up slowly but with steadily increasing
strength and spreading among all classes of society, even
those whose feelings against the Union were bitterest
during and immediately after the war, that has made the
New South as we see it to-day.
It is not my purpose here to show in detail the economic
growth of the South since the war. The Northern visitor
will still be struck with the enormous difference between
the South and the North in the matter of wealth. Travel
ling from State to State and attentively looking at country
and town and people, he will be apt to ask two questions.
One is: How could Southern men, considering the
sparseness of their population and their comparative
poverty, be so foolhardy as to urge the South into that
war with the rich and populous North? And the other
is: How was it possible for the Southern people, consid
ering the enormous disparity of means and resources, to
maintain that war for four long years?
But, although still poor, the South is decidedly richer
than it was before the war, while, of course, its wealth is
differently distributed. New industries have sprung up
and old ones are better developed. The mineral resources
are gradually drawn to light. In the iron regions of
Alabama new towns are growing up, the appearance of
which reminds one of Pennsylvania. Cotton mills are
multiplying. Manufacturing establishments of various
kinds are rising in many places. While the sugar inter
est in Louisiana has much declined, other branches of
agriculture, such as tobacco in North Carolina, have
taken a new start. The cotton crop is constantly growing
i88sl Carl Schurz 377
larger. The question of decisive import is no longer only
how the negroes will work, for the white people them
selves are working much better than before. The number
of young men in the villages and small towns standing
idle around the grocery corners is steadily decreasing.
Among young people the tendency to devote themselves
earnestly to useful and laborious occupations is becoming
much more general. The poor whites of both sexes are
in many places found to make industrious and faithful
operatives in manufacturing establishments.
About the working habits of the colored people differ
ent judgments are heard. One planter and one manu
facturer will praise them while another complains. After
much investigation and inquiry, I have formed the con
clusion that the employers who treat the negroes most
intelligently and fairly are usually satisfied with their
work, while the employers who complain most are usually
those who are most complained of. The question of
negro labor seems to be largely a question of manage
ment. There may be exceptions to this rule, but not
enough to invalidate it. The number of colored men
who have acquired property is not very large yet, but it
is growing. I have seen negro settlements of a decidedly
thrifty and prosperous appearance. A few colored men
have become comparatively wealthy and live in some
style. It is generally said of them that they are "im
provident. " This is doubtless true of a large majority of
them; but they are only somewhat more improvident
than their former masters who used to live on next year's
crop. It is a question of degrees between them. Since
their emancipation they have shown much zeal for the
education of their young people. Here and there this
zeal is said to have cooled a little, but, as far as I have
observed, it has not cooled much. Their educational
facilities are still scanty in the agricultural districts,
378 The Writings of [1885
where school is kept only three months in the year. A
large portion of the colored country population is there
fore still lamentably ignorant.
The most unsatisfactory feature of their condition as a
class is a disinclination to work, shown by many of their
young people who have grown up since the abolition of
slavery. There is said to be a notion spreading among
them that it is the aim and end of education to enable
people to get on without work. This tendency is excit
ing a prejudice against the education of negroes not only
among certain classes of whites, but also with some of
the more thrifty among the negroes themselves. I heard
of a prosperous negro farmer in Alabama owning a well-
stocked farm of 500 acres, worked by him with his chil
dren, who refuses to send his boys to school because
learning would spoil them for farm work, and who per
mitted only one of his girls to learn reading and writing,
so that she might be able to keep his accounts. Here is
a field for missionary work, which those whose public
spirit is devoted to the elevation of the colored race
should keep well in view. The relation of grammar to
industry must be made tangible to the young mind,
as it is at the Hampton Institute and several others.
The addition of industrial teaching to the common school
is in this respect of especial importance. Among those
who have been slaves there are a great many skillful
mechanics — blacksmiths, carpenters, harness-makers, shoe
makers, etc. Their sons, raised in freedom, seem to be
less inclined to devote themselves to these laborious
trades; and yet the negro, with his mechanical aptitudes,
might, properly trained and guided, furnish the South
all the handicraftsmen necessary for ordinary work. As
it is, the negroes constitute, and will for a long period to
come continue to constitute, the. bulk of the agricultural
laboring force in the principal cotton States, and every
1885] Carl Schurz 379
sensible Southern man recognizes them as a most valuable
and, in fact, indispensable element in developing the
resources and promoting the prosperity of the South.
They are there to stay, and must be made the best of by
just and wise treatment.
The visitor will be struck with the generally hopeful
and cheery tone prevailing in Southern society. Their
recovery from the disasters of the war has been more
rapid than at first they expected. They are proud, and
justly proud, of what they have accomplished in that
direction. They are glad to have strangers observe it.
Having done so much, they feel that they can do more.
While business is in many respects depressed in the
South, less complaint of this is heard than at the North.
The general spirit prevailing in the South now is very
like that characteristic of the new West: a high appreci
ation of the resources and advantages of the country;
great expectations of future developments; a lively desire
to excite interest in those things, and to attract Northern
capital, enterprise and immigration; a strong conscious
ness and appreciation of the importance to them of their
being a part of a great, strong, prosperous and united
country.
The political effect of the steady growth of such feel
ings has been a very natural one. It is the complete
disappearance of all "disloyal" aspirations. However
strong their desire to destroy the Union may have been
twenty years ago, I am confident, scarcely a corporal's
guard of men could be found in the South to-day who
would accept the disruption of the Union if it were pre
sented to them. Those were right who predicted in
the early part of the war that the abolition of slavery
would not only break the backbone of the rebellion, but
also remove the cause of disloyalty from the South.
This it has completely accomplished. In fact, never in
380 The Writings of [1885
the history of this Republic has there been a time when
there was no disunion feeling at all in this country, until
now. Ever since the revolutionary period until within a
few years there have always been some people who, for
some reason or another, desired the dissolution of the
Union, or who thought it possible, or who speculated
upon its effects. Now, for the first time, there is nowhere
such a wish, or such a thought, or such a speculation.
By everybody the "Union now and forever" is taken
for granted. The South is thoroughly cured of the
mischievous dream of secession, not only by the bloody
failure of its attempt, but by the constantly growing
conviction that success would have been a terrible mis
fortune to themselves. Many a Southern man who
had been active in the rebellion, said to me in conver
sation about the war: "It is dreadful to think what
would have become of us if we had won." They would
fight now as gallantly to stay in the Union as twenty-two
or three years ago they fought to get out of it. There
is no doubt, should any danger threaten the Union again,
the Southern people would be among its most zealous
defenders.
There has been a suspicion raised at the North that
this loyal garb is put on by Southern men merely for the
purpose of concealing secret disloyal designs. This is
absurd. Before the war they plotted and conspired, it is
true. But they did not keep their purposes secret. On
the contrary, they paraded them on every possible occa
sion. They were outspoken enough, and it was not their
fault if they were not believed. Whatever may be said
of our Southern people, they have never been deep dis
semblers. When they say they are for the Union, they
are just as honest as they were when they pronounced
themselves against it.
As to the abolition of slavery, the change of sentiment
1885] Carl Schurz 381
is no less decided. However desperately they may have
fought against emancipation, but few men can now be
found in the South who would restore slavery if they
could. It is said that there are some, but I have not
been able to find one. The expression: "The war and
the abolition of slavery have been the making of the
South," is heard on all sides. It is generally felt that
new social forces, new energies, have been called into
activity, which the old state of things would have kept
in a torpid condition. There is, therefore, no danger of
another pro-slavery movement. The relations between
the colored laborer and the white employer are bound
to develop themselves upon a bona-fide free-labor basis.
Of the social and political relations between the two
races, something more will be said below.
The distrust among Northern people as to the revival
of loyal sentiments in the South, while in some cases
honestly entertained, has in others been cultivated for
political purposes. The question is asked: "Why, if
they are loyal, do they select as their representatives
men who were prominent in the rebellion? What about
their reverence for Jefferson Davis?" and so on. Every
candid inquirer will find to these questions a simple
answer: In the "Confederate States, " a few districts ex-
cepted, nearly all white male adults entered the military
service. They were all " rebel soldiers. " When after the
war the Southern people had to choose public officers
from among themselves, they were in many places liter
ally confined to a choice between rebel soldiers and
negroes. In other places they were not so confined. But
they followed the natural impulse of preferring as their
agents and representatives men who really represented
them, who had been with them "in the same boat" in fair
weather and in foul. This companionship in good and ill
fortune has in all ages and in all countries been a strong
382 The Writings of [1885
bond to bind men together. One rebel soldier could
hardly be expected to say that another rebel soldier was
unworthy of public trust because of his service in the
rebel army, for he would thus have disqualified himself.
Nor was there necessarily any disloyalty in this — not
even a remnant of it ; for a rebel soldier who after the war
had "accepted the situation" in perfectly good faith and
sincerely resolved to accommodate himself to the new
order of things, might naturally prefer as his representative
another rebel soldier who had "accepted the situation"
with equal sincerity, for the representation would then
be more honest and, probably, more efficient.
A peculiarly terrific figure in partisan harangue is
the "Rebel Brigadier." From the descriptions made of
him the "Rebel Brigadier" might be supposed to be
an incurably black-hearted traitor, still carrying the
rebel flag under his coat to bring it out at an oppor
tune moment, still secretly drilling his old hosts on dark
nights, and getting himself elected to Congress for the
purpose of crippling the Government by artfully contrived
schemes to accomplish the destruction of the Union as
soon as his party is well settled in power. Now, what
kind of man is the "Rebel Brigadier" in reality? He
belonged in the South, originally, to the same class to
which the Union brigadiers belonged in the North.
After the close of the war he found himself as poor as
the rest of his people. At first he moped and growled
a little, and then went to work to make a living — as a
farmer, or a lawyer, or a railroad employee, or an insur
ance man, or a book agent. Being a man of intelligence,
he was among the first to open his eyes to the fact that
the war had been — perhaps a very foolish venture for
the South, because it was undertaken against overwhelm
ing odds — and certainly a very disastrous one, because
it left nothing but wreck and ruin behind it ; one of those
1885] Carl Schurz 383
enterprises which a man of sense may delude himself
into once, but never again. He is now very busy re
pairing his fortunes in the civil walks of life, and the bet
ter he succeeds, the more conservative he grows, for the
more clearly he perceives that his own fortunes are closely
linked to the general prosperity of the country, and
that everything hurtful to the country hurts him. He
is in many instances drawn into public life by the choice
of his neighbors. His views on questions of public policy
may frequently be mistaken — they probably are. He
may also be always ready to jump up in defense of his
record and the record and character of his associates in
the war. He shows pride of his and their gallantry in the
field, as every soldier will do, and he is unwilling to have
it said that his motives were infamous — a thing which
but few men, and those not the best, are willing to hear
or admit. But having learned at his own cost what
civil war is, he would be among the last to think of re
bellion again. He has that military honor in him which
respects the terms of a capitulation; and if he has any
ambition to show his prowess once more, it will be for
the restored Union and not against it.
But what does the affection for Jefferson Davis mean
which is occasionally displayed? The candid inquirer
will find that those demonstrations of affection have a
sentimental, not a practical significance. Southern men
do not attempt to shift the responsibility for the rebellion.
They discriminate little among themselves as to the pro
portion of guilt, and in treating Jefferson Davis and
other leaders with respect after their downfall, they think
they are in a certain sense acting in self-defense. I have
heard the most thoroughly "reconstructed" Southerners
say that, if after the close of the war they had made haste
to tear one another to pieces and to cover their leaders
with disgrace, they would not feel themselves entitled to
384 The Writings of [1885
the respect of Northern gentlemen. To illustrate the
compatibility of such sentiments with thorough loyalty
to the Union I may quote a conversation I had with a
young Southerner who had grown up since the war, gradu
ated at Harvard and become in all respects a thoroughly
national man without the least tinge of sectional feeling
or prejudice.
The Southern people [said he] really trouble themselves
little about Jefferson Davis. They have no confidence in
his judgment, and would not think of following him again
as a leader. But they do not like to hear it said that the
leader they once followed was an infamous rascal. The
Northern people ask too much of us when they insist that
we should brand all such men with infamy. Look at my
case. My father was a Confederate general. I was a baby
when the war broke out, and have studied the matter since.
I think the secession movement was the craziest thing ever
attempted, and its success would have been one of the most
horrible misfortunes in the history of the world. Now, my
father talked, and agitated, and fought on that side. He is
as guilty as any of them. And yet I know him to be a very
kind, honorable and good man in every respect, the best
man I ever saw. Would you ask me to call my father a
black-hearted traitor? I cannot do it. He is a good and
honest man, and is my father.
I repeat, the young man who said this is one of the most
enthusiastic Americans that ever cheered for the Stars
and Stripes, a man who would willingly let his State go
to the bottom to serve the Union.
As to Jefferson Davis, the question of practical import
ance is whether he would find any followers if attempting
to lead another movement against the National authority.
He would not only not find any number worth speaking
of, but such an attempt would destroy the last remnant of
his prestige in the South at once. If he were suspected
Carl Schurz 385
of having any ambitious designs involving the political
action of the Southern people, he would instantly reveal
himself as what he really is: a powerless old man who,
having once led the Southern people into disaster and
ruin, is now treated with the respect usually thought due
to eminent misfortune, because it is believed by all that
he will never try to do so again. The sentimental demon
strations in his favor, while they do sometimes touch a
sore point at the North, are, therefore, beyond that, really
of no practical consequence whatever.
More pertinent is the question why the Southern
whites, with the revival of loyal sentiment, did not in
large numbers join the Republican party, but remained
in mass on the Democratic side. Men of standing and
influence in the South would, in my opinion, indeed have
rendered a valuable service to their people had they
put themselves into friendlier communication with the
dominant party immediately after the war, thus to gain
more of the confidence of the freedmen who naturally
looked to the Republican party for guidance. Many
difficulties might thus have been avoided. But, un
fortunately, it was just then that President Johnson's
indiscreet conduct turned their thoughts in a different
direction. And, moreover, the character and conduct
of many of the Republicans in places of power in the
South at that period did not invite such a movement.
Some of the latter preferred to organize the negroes as
a political force under their own absolute leadership.
And thus the Republican party, in some of the Southern
States at least, became that organization of ignorance
led by rapacity, by which the Southern whites felt them
selves virtually forced, in spite of the divergencies of
political opinion among them, to rally under the Demo
cratic banner. The bond which held them together
was the common fear of negro domination. This fear
VOL. IV. — 25
386 The Writings of [1885
exercised an influence more or less strong as the danger
of negro predominance was locally more or less threaten
ing. But for this one element of political cohesion, that
which is called "the Solid South" would ere this have
dropped to pieces. And as that element of cohesion loses
its strength, the South will, no doubt, gradually cease to
be "solid."
Of this the premonitory symptoms are already ap
parent. The common interest, as Southern men con
ceive it, of preventing negro domination in their own
borders, is essentially of a defensive character. But the
Southern States have no longer any common object to
carry aggressively against the interests of the rest of
the country, as they had, for instance, when they were
fighting for the expansion of slavery. There is, there
fore, no longer any distinctive "Southern policy" in the
old sense. The economic interests of the South and of
the North are becoming more and more alike. There
is no longer any essential difference between them as
between two countries whose material development re
quires, respectively, different means and policies. Eco
nomic questions are no longer discussed between the
sections, but within them. As to the tariff, for instance,
it looks as if the protection sentiment were gaining ground
in the South as it is losing ground in the North. Although
the "cause of silver" is strong in the South, yet nobody
will pretend that there is unanimity about it or that it is
felt to be a peculiarly Southern interest. About these
things, as well as the matter of internal revenue, the
subject of banking, civil service reform, temperance legis
lation etc., there is enough difference of opinion among
Southern men who now call themselves Democrats, to
produce serious effects as soon as the apprehension of
common danger disappears.
The "time-honored principles" of the Democratic
1885] Carl Schurz 387
party, as far as they refer to theories of government,
have become somewhat obscure as to their identity in
the Southern mind, and are correspondingly weakened
as to their influence in Southern politics. Many of the
older men there, indeed, still delight in an argument
about a point of "strict construction," and in quoting
Jefferson's first inaugural. But to the common run of
mankind in the South the Virginia and Kentucky resolu
tions of 1 798 have ceased to be known by name, and even
a good many of the older men, when it comes to a prac
tical application of their political principles, are not at
all disinclined to admit considerable latitude in the
exercise of the National power, if it promises them any
local advantage. Indeed, it might even be said that
many Southern men in these days seem inclined to favor
—perhaps not in theory but certainly in practice — rather
too loose than too strict a construction of the Constitu
tional functions of the General Government.
Moreover, there is a generation of young men grow
ing up in the South who, when the present and prospec
tive condition of the South is discussed at the North, are
in most cases left altogether out of view. And yet, in
point of fact, in a very few years an absolute majority
of the voters of the South will consist of men who never
saw a Confederate flag, who never in their lives saw a
negro that was not a freeman, and who know of slavery
only as a thing of mere historic interest, which in its day
did a great deal of mischief to the country, and upon
which the enlightened opinion of mankind has recorded
its judgment. Whatever foolish attempts may have
been made by some persons in the South immediately
after the war to educate their posterity in hatred of the
North and of the Union, these young men draw their
ideas and aspirations entirely from the new order of
things. The political battlecries of old times are to them
388 The Writings of [1885
almost meaningless vociferation ; their minds are absorbed
by present cares and interests of far greater importance
to them. A good many of them are ambitious to accom
plish something in the world, to make their abilities tell,
and to that end to infuse some new life into the old South
ern communities. They grow impatient at the slow pace
of the old-time " war horses, " and of the solemn dignitaries
who still cling to traditional notions and ways; they
speak with remarkable irreverence of the antiquated
pretensions of the old " chivalry," and have as little
sympathy with the narrow views of the farmer politician
who would rather see a good system of public instruc
tion go to the bottom than make a decent appropriation
of money for the support of it. A good many young
men answering this description are beginning to show
an active interest in public affairs ; not a few have already
become members of Southern legislatures, and they
will, of course, in rapidly increasing numbers push to the
front, and at no distant day occupy the places of control
ling influence. Their feelings are throughout strongly
national, and in several places I found among them
evidences of a very intelligent and stirring public spirit.
They have so far "gone with the party," but there is
much independent thinking among them, which, no
doubt, in the course of time will determine their political
action. Some exceptions may be found, but not many.
In this respect the change taking place in the political
attitude of the colored people can scarcely fail to pro
duce far-reaching effects. The two races in the South
have been kept in relations of mutual fear by the appre
hension on one side that negro domination meant ruin to
the people, and that the continued ascendancy of the
Republican party threatened a return of negro domina
tion, and, on the other side, that a victory of the Demo
cratic party in a National election would mean the
1885] Carl Schurz 389
restoration of slavery. The latter belief had been in
dustriously kept alive by Republican politicians and
colored preachers, and was much more generally enter
tained among the negroes than might be thought possible.
In fact, as soon as the result of the late Presidential
election became known in the South, very many of the
former slaves went to their former masters to offer
themselves anew for service.
Of this fear the colored people are now thoroughly
cured. They looked upon the Republican party as the
natural protector of their freedom, and upon that protec
tion as necessary to them. They have now discovered
that this necessity no longer exists, and that, as to their
freedom, they need not be afraid of the Democrats. This
experience has set a good many of them to thinking about
some other things, especially about their social status, and
the means by which to improve it.
There are two different standards by which to judge
the treatment the negro receives in the South: one is a
comparison with the treatment white people mete out to
one another, and the other is a comparison with the
treatment the negro receives at the North. Applying
the first standard, we find the difference undoubtedly
very great in all those relations of life which are not
effectively regulated by law. But comparing, in this
respect, the South with the North, the difference will be
found small, and it is accounted for in a great measure
by the obvious difference in the mental and moral condi
tion of the colored people, and their significance in the
social body at the North and the South respectively.
The Northern negroes have, with few exceptions, been
freemen all their lives, and their parents before them ; most
of them are tolerably well educated, and they form onty
a small percentage of the population, so small, indeed,
that as a constituent element of society they are scarcely
390 The Writings of [1885
of any consequence. While there are in Southern towns
not a few negroes comparing very favorably with those
we see in the North, a large part of the colored population
of the South consists of plantation hands, a class of persons
entirely unknown in the Northern country. Emancipa
tion found many of them only a few removes from absolute
barbarism, and no educational efforts could have lifted
them very high above that state in one generation. The
colored population, with such elements in it, forms in
some of the Southern States a majority, in others a strong
minority of the people, heavily preponderating in cer
tain geographical districts. The negro in the South is,
therefore, a very different being from the negro in the
North in point of quality and of quantity, and of his
practical relations to the interests of society. As to the
spirit in which the negro is treated the two sections cor
respondingly differ somewhat, but not very much. As a
matter of fact, there is among the white people of the
North as well as of the South a wide-spread feeling that
the two races do not belong together. In neither of the
two sections do they, therefore, mingle socially upon an
equal footing. But as to those public accommodations
and conveniences, the equal enjoyment of which is usually
put under the head of " civil rights," a difference in the
treatment colored people receive is perceptible between
the North and the South; it is, however, mainly one
of degrees, and not very great. Neither is the treatment
of negroes the same in all the Southern States. I have
travelled with negroes — I mean colored persons travel
ling independently, not as servants accompanying their
employers — in first-class railway cars as well as street
cars, not only in the North, but also in the South —
in some Southern States at least. In Georgia the rail
road companies have to provide for the colored people
separate cars, of the same quality, however, as furnished
i88s) Carl Schurz 391
to white people paying the same fare, while in Tennessee,
as I am informed, colored passengers are invariably
turned into the smoking-cars. I found at several railroad
stations in the South separate waiting-rooms for colored
people, a discrimination which is not made at the North.
I have never met any colored people as guests in the
dining-rooms of first-class hotels, either at the South or
at the North. I have seen colored people sitting in the
same rows with whites at lectures, in at least one or two
instances in the South, and several times in the North.
In the South the two races do not attend the same churches
and schools, and this, as I have been assured by colored
and white people alike, in accordance, not only with the
wishes of the whites, but also with the preference of the
colored people themselves, who in many places have shown
a desire even to have their white teachers supplanted by
persons of color. In the North, whites and negroes have
sat together in schools and churches, and here and there
do so now; but, if I am rightly informed, in most places
where the number of colored people is considerable,
they have separated. This separation is, of course,
more voluntary in the North than in the South, but it is
generally favored by colored preachers and teachers for
business reasons. We hear, from time to time, of in
offensive colored people being brutally ejected from
public places and means of conveyance, and such stories
come unquestionably oftener from the South than from
the North. The spirit which prompts such brutalities
is, of course, the same everywhere. It is more frequently
met with in the South, partly because the contact between
the two races is more frequent, and partly because there
is still a larger class of whites in the South who feel so
little confident, and therefore so restless, concerning
their superiority over the negro, that they avail themselves
of every chance to make sure of it by some outward
392 The Writings of [1885
demonstration. And the frontier tone still prevailing
in the sparsely-settled districts of the South is apt to
make such demonstrations peculiarly rude. There is
but little, if any, difference between the North and the
South as to the sentiment prevailing about such things
in what may properly be called the best society, for a
gentleman of genuine self-respect will never fear any
danger for his dignity in meeting with people of ever so
lowly a station, or in respecting their rights.
It has frequently been asserted, and probably not with
out reason, that on the whole the colored race meets with
more cordial kindness among the white people of the
South than among those of the North. The difference
may be defined thus: In the South more kindness, in the
North more justice. Kindness is warm, but arbitrary;
justice is cold, but impartial. I am, however, inclined to
think that, but for the low moral and intellectual con
dition of the plantation negroes, and the dread inspired
by their number, and the race-antagonisms on the politi
cal field, the general relations between the colored people
and the whites would indeed be more satisfactory, more
agreeable, in the South than in the North, and I believe
that as the negroes become better educated, and as the
change in their political attitude takes place to which I
shall refer below, their " civil rights" will, even without
further legal machinery, find fully as much protection in
the South as in the North, and perhaps more.
The election of a Democratic President has been to the
negro a great blessing, for it has delivered him from two
dangerous delusions: one, that the success of the Demo
cratic party in a National election would make him a
slave again, and the other, that by acting together as a
race the negroes could wield in politics a controlling in
fluence with much profit to themselves. They know now
that their freedom is assured whatever party wins, and
1885] Carl Schurz 393
that it is not necessary for them to herd together in a
political party of their own for self-defense. They know
also that they can never hope again to become the ruling
power in politics as they felt themselves to be for a time
under the leadership of Republican adventurers, and
that, therefore, negro politics in the old way will never
pay them again. This will help them to understand that
they will best serve their race by identifying themselves
closely with the general interest.
The state of mind produced among the negroes by this
revelation can scarcely be better expressed than in the
language of an address delivered by an intelligent colored
politician, a United States mail agent, before a colored
debating club in a Southern city during my visit there.
Of this address I was fortunate enough to secure the
manuscript. The title was "The Effect of the Incoming
Administration upon the Negro Race. ' ' After setting forth
that the election of a Democratic President did not, as
had been apprehended, threaten the freedom of the negro,
it proceeded:
Man cannot live upon bread alone, nor can a race achieve
civil and political success by politics alone. Education,
wealth and morality must keep pace with political progress
in order for that progress to be of a lasting and permanent
character. Having given nearly twenty years to vain en
deavors to secure full and complete civil and political rights
under Republican rule, and having failed, Democratic resto
ration destroys all hope of securing them with the ballot;
therefore, the negro will eliminate himself from the body-
politic. His ambitions and aspirations will naturally turn
to the obtaining of money, property, education and the
improvement of his morals. And when he shall have spent
as much time and consideration upon these subjects as he
has upon politics, his condition will be advanced a hundred
per cent. The bugbear "negro domination" being removed
394 The Writings of [1885
by national Democratic success, will bring about a better
local feeling between the two races, and also be the means
of producing division in the ranks of the party that is now
held together by fear and race prejudices. That Democratic
success will benefit rather than injure the negro race is fast
making itself manifest to every thoughtful reader of the signs
of the times. Too much politics and not enough of the other
substantialities of life has done the race more harm than
Democratic opposition.
This, no doubt, expresses the general sentiments of
educated colored people in the South. It means the end
of race politics. But it does not mean the end of negro
voting. About this, too, the orator here quoted had
something to say:
Hereafter the negro, in casting his vote, will be governed
by his immediate interest. If A, a Democrat, runs for
office against B, a Republican, he will not vote for B, simply
because he is a Republican, nor for A, simply because he is a
Democrat; but he will vote for the one who will do that
which will be to his interest. No one can call this ingratitude
on his part, for he has more than paid the debt of gratitude
he owed the Republican party for his freedom.
Indeed, the phrase that the debt of gratitude to the
Republican party was more than paid, I heard from so
many colored men in nearly the same language, that it
seemed almost as if the word had been passed around
among them. This simply signifies a strong tendency
among the negroes of the South to go over to the
Democrats, and to put themselves in accord with "their
white neighbors and friends." Many of them openly
avow this intention.
The consequences will inevitably be what they always
are under such circumstances. In most of the Southern
States the Democratic party will be substantially without
Carl Schurz 395
opposition. The common dread of negro domination,
which held it together in spite of internal differences
of opinion on other points, will have vanished. These
differences will make themselves felt more strongly and
widely. Independent movements will multiply. Most
of these will probably at first not turn on National politics,
but on home questions. Instead of driving the negro
away from the ballot-box, each Democratic faction will
try to strengthen itself by getting as much as possible
of the colored vote. The negro will thus be virtually
dragged to the polls again by Democratic hands. In
stances of this on a small scale, in local contests, have
already been witnessed. When different candidates or
factions of the Democratic party, or two different parties,
outbid one another for the colored vote, the negro's rights
will, of course, find the most efficient protection in that
very competition for their political favor, and the effect
will also be gradually to soften the harshness of civil
discrimination in the way above indicated. Thus the
original object for which negro suffrage was instituted,
the protection of the freedman's rights, will, indeed, have
been accomplished by it. Of course, as soon as the
colored vote breaks up, it will cease to be a political force
on the side of the Republican party. Republican poli
ticians complain already that the introduction of negro
suffrage has served only to give the Southern States a
larger proportion of votes in Congress and in the Electoral
College than they otherwise would have had, and that
this increase tells almost wholly in favor of the Democrats.
It has, indeed, had that effect with regard to the relative
strength of parties; but there is nothing surprising in this.
When the matter of negro suffrage was under discussion
there were far-seeing men enough who predicted that,
as is usually the case with a population at the same time
ignorant and poor and dependent, the vote of the negro
396 The Writings of [1885
would, for a long period to come, really not be his own;
that it would virtually be cast by the political leader,
probably a demagogue, or by the employer. This pre
diction, in the very face of which negro suffrage was
introduced, stands justified. The demagogue cast the
bulk of the colored vote as long as the negro was in dread
as to his freedom. That apprehension being dispelled,
the employer, or rather the employer class, will control
the bulk of it now — until the negro shall have become
sufficiently educated and independent to think and act
for himself. This may be considered a grievance by the
Republican politician. But the Republican of con
science and principle will not forget that just in this way
negro suffrage has accomplished the paramount object
for which the true Republican desired its introduction,
namely, the protection of the freedman's rights, and that
it was probably the only way in which that end could be
reached.
But as the old antagonisms cease and the negro vote is
bid for by different interests among the employers, it will
be apt to become a regular article of trade, and an ele
ment of gross corruption in Southern politics. In casting
about for remedies to be applied, Southern men will do
well to consider that, consistently with the new order of
things, this evil can be mitigated only by bringing the
colored people under the best possible educational influ
ences, and by encouraging among them the acquisition
of property, and thereby the creation of a conservative
interest calculated to bring the responsibility of voters
home to them.
The accession of a large body of colored voters will,
of course, make the Democratic party in the South much
stronger than before. But it is probable that, in the ab
sence of the cohesive power of common fears and of a
distinctively Southern policy, the divisions on local ques-
1885] Carl Schurz 397
tions which have already taken place will facilitate the
formation of new groupings on questions of a National
character, and that the South, at a day not very distant,
will cease to figure as a " solid" quantity in our National
elections.
But whether this takes place in four, or in eight, or in
twelve years, no unprejudiced observer will fail to recog
nize the fact that the Rebellion is really over, and that
those who still speak of the white people of the South as
11 unregenerated rebels, as disloyal and as bitter as ever,"
betray either lamentable ignorance or something much
worse.
I think it safe to affirm that to-day, twenty years after
the close of the war, the Southern people are as loyal to
the Union as the people of any part of the country, that
they fully understand and profoundly feel the value
of their being part of it, and that a disunion movement
would find no more adherents in South Carolina than in
Massachusetts. I think it also safe to say that, whatever
atrocities may have happened during that terrible period
of sudden transition from one social order to another, the
relations between the white and black races are now in
progress of peaceful and friendly adjustment, and that the
disappearance of race antagonism on the political field
will do more for the safety of the negro's rights and the
improvement of his position in human society than could
be done by any intervention of mere power.
If there are any dangerous political tendencies percep
tible among the Southern people, they are not such as
are frequently used as bugbears to frighten the loyal
sentiment of the North, but rather lie in the opposite
direction. There is no longer any danger of a stubborn
adherence to State-rights doctrines of an anti-national
character. The danger is rather in an inclination to look
too much to the National Government for benefits to be
398 The Writings of [1885
conferred upon the people of the Southern States — an
inclination cropping out in a variety of ways of far greater
practical significance than mere discussions on theories
of government. Neither is there any danger that in
consequence of the Democratic victory in the National
election the negro will be deprived of his right to vote;
the danger is rather that, as the Democrats divide among
themselves, the negro will be drawn to the polls and made
to vote more than he otherwise would, by demoralizing
inducements.
It is also to be apprehended that large numbers of peo
ple in the South, under the influence of their struggle
with poverty or with chronic embarrassments, will long
be subject to those delusions on economic questions
which are at the bottom of the fiat-money idea and the
silver movement, and that, as they see a prospect for an
industrial development in the South, extreme protection
theories may grow strong there by the time the North is
through with them. But these things are not peculiar to
the South. There is nothing of a "peculiar institution, "
of a "Southern policy" in them. A "friend of silver"
in Texas cannot possibly be hotter than a "friend of sil
ver" in Colorado. The fiat-money man in Mississippi
borrows his arguments from the fiat-money man in Ohio ;
and the free-trader in South Carolina or the protectionist
in northern Alabama is substantially of the same mind
with the free-trader in Minnesota or the protectionist
in Pennsylvania. There is no longer any division of
political aims and motives marked by Mason and Dixon's
line. The errors which the Southern people are liable
to commit with regard to all these things may be grievous
enough, but they will not be peculiarly Southern errors;
and in the eyes of sensible men they will not furnish even
a plausible pretext for keeping alive sectional suspicions
and animosities.
1885] Carl Schurz 399
The election of a Democratic President, whatever else
may be hoped or apprehended from it, has certainly had
two immediate results of great importance. It has con
vinced every candid man in the country that the Southern
people were not, as had been apprehended by some,
waiting for the advent of the Democratic party to power
to put forth disloyal sentiments and schemes, but that
the victory of the party supported by them was rather
esteemed by them as an opportunity for a demonstration
of national feeling; and, secondly, it has proven to the
country in general, and in particular to the negroes, that
the freedom and rights of the late slave do not depend
upon the predominance of any political party, but are
safe under one as well as under the other.
These points being settled, the public mind may hence
forth rest in the assurance that the period of the rebellion
is indeed a thing of the past; that the existence of the
Government and the legitimate results of the war are no
longer in jeopardy, whatever political party may carry
the elections, and that the American people can, without
fear of any darkly lurking danger, give themselves to
the discussion of questions of political ethics, or of ad
ministration, or of political economy, treating them upon
their own proper merits. This consummation may be
unwelcome to that class of politicians whose main stock
in trade has long consisted in unwholesome sectional dis
trusts and animosities carefully nursed, and who, there
fore, make it a business to blow up any savage freak of a
Southern ruffian into a crime of the Southern people,
or the harmless lunacy of any Southern "crank" into a
serious danger to the Union. But to the patriotic
American the welfare of the Republic is after all dearer
than the political capital of any party. The more en
thusiastic he was as a Union man, the more sincerely
happy he will be to see the Union fully restored, and
400 The Writings of [1885
held together, not by force of arms, but by a common
national pride and common interests and hopes and
aspirations. The more earnest he was as an enemy of
slavery, the more he will rejoice to find the rights of the
freedman secured by his friendly relations with his white
neighbors. Instead of eagerly seizing upon every chance
for sowing suspicion and bitterness between the North
and the South, he will hail with gladness all evidences
of returned fraternal feeling, and he will not be ashamed
to own that even those who during the war stood against
him as enemies, had, as fellow-citizens, his sympathy in
the calamities they had brought upon themselves, and
that his heartiest wishes are with them for the success
of every honorable effort to repair their fortunes and to
resume their places in the citizenship of this Republic.
TO JOHN T. MORSE, JR.
no WEST 34TH ST.,
NEW YORK, April 30, 1885.
Your letter dated on the 226. inst. reached me only this
afternoon. Can there be a mistake in the date?
I hear the growl of the impatient editor, and I appre
ciate his feelings, too. The present situation of the matter
is this: I am pretty well advanced in the biography and
hard at work on it. Most of the material I have in hand.
Barring accident, I hope to get the book [Henry Clay] done
by October — that is to say, I deem it probable that I shall.
I might rush it through, but that, I am sure, you do not
want me to do. All I can say is that I shall do my utmost
to finish it by that time. The book would have been
finished long ago had I not been interrupted by calls
upon my time of various kinds, which I could not possibly
disregard. Even now I am working under some strain,
i88si Carl Schurz 401
but I do hope to accomplish it. To that end I am keeping
clear of all engagements which are not forced upon me by
actual necessity. I may add that I like the work.
This is a careful statement of the case, and now I refer
the matter to your own judgment.
The information you say you will give me as to "the
amount of probable compensation" will be welcome.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, June 25, 1885.
I trust it is not too late to congratulate you on the
selections you have made for the marshalships in Chicago
and Cincinnati, the appointment of Mr. Stallo, and the
removal of Meade. All these things have made an
excellent impression and greatly strengthened public
confidence in your purposes and firmness.
I learn through this morning's papers that efforts are
making to induce you to appoint some representative of
one of the Democratic factions here collector of customs.
Pardon me for saying that I should consider anything of
the kind a great mistake and a misfortune. The New
York customhouse is the most prominent place in the
home service. It has a sort of National character. It
is the place where the practical reform of the civil service
is most conspicuously on trial. The selection you make
for the collectorship will therefore be looked upon as a
test of the general tendency of your Administration in
that respect. The character of the appointment should,
therefore, in my humble opinion, be such as to convince
every one at first sight, that the customhouse is not to be
in any sense a machine in politics. It is quite evident that
the selection of any one " representing" any of the factions
would produce just the contrary effect.
VOL. IV. — 26
402 The Writings of tl88s
I have had some anxious letters again from Boston about
the collectorship there. May I speak once more of the
disheartening shock the independent element received by
the appointment of Mr. Pillsbury and of the importance
of putting a thorough reformer into the other influential
place so that the impression made by the former may not
remain the prevailing one?
At our interview here something was said about a little
speech I had made at a dinner in Boston in the midst of the
excitement caused by the Pillsbury appointment, and that
I should send it to you. I do so now, although it is old,
because, as I am assured through a great many letters
from different parts of the country, it faithfully expresses
the independent sentiment.
As it may interest you to hear something of the current
of opinion concerning your Administration, I may say that
among those with whom I come into contact the feeling
is generally one of satisfaction, confidence and hope.
People say that on the whole things go well, and that
although mistakes were made, you may be depended upon
to correct them. You are constantly gaining friends. It
is true, there is more trust in you than in the party.
Of course, we should not forget, that the great danger,
politically, of an Administration like yours is to sit down
between two chairs. Three policies are before you. One
is to return altogether to the old practices of the spoils
system. This would indeed rally a considerable portion
of your party firmly around you, but it would after all
finally result in fatal defeat and dishonor. I should not
speak of this as a " possibility" at all. The second is to
strike out boldly and consistently in the line of reform,
aiming straight at a non-partisan service. A portion of
the party, not however a large one, might revolt, but you
would find a powerful public sentiment on your side with
recruits far more than enough to fill the gap. You will
Carl Schurz' 403
then have a party, to be sure, with new elements but also
with new vitality in it. The third is to go forward in the
line of reform far enough to disgust some of the old party—
for almost any degree of systematic reform will do that
—but not far enough to inspire the reform elements
outside of the party with that enthusiasm which will
induce them to step under your banner in mass and as an
organized force. Thus the gap would be made and not
filled. This is what we might call sitting down between
two chairs. The second policy appears, therefore, not
only the best one for the country, but the only safe one
for you and your party.
You will have noticed that the Republican platform
in Ohio makes two issues, one the "bloody shirt," and
the other civil service reform. The first is more or less
burnt powder; but the importance of the second will
depend on two things: what the Democratic State
conventions will say, and what you do. The Republican
platforms will all fairly ring with the reform cry. There
is danger that the Democratic conventions will be far
less outspoken in that respect. If so, everything will de
pend on you, not merely as regards this year's campaigns,
but the success of your Administration and the vitality
and fate of your party generally.
If, under these circumstances, you would permit me
to make a suggestion, it would be i , to extend, as soon as
possible, the civil service rules beyond the scope in which
you found them, even if it be only a little; 2, to leave in
office or reappoint some conspicuously efficient Republi
can officeholders; and 3, to correct, as soon as it can
conveniently be done, some of the mistakes made, for
instance, in the internal revenue collectorships in New
England.
Pardon me for adding that the sweeping changes in
the internal revenue collectorships have always struck
404 The Writings of [1885
me as questionable proceedings. Those places were not
put under the four-years-term rule for the very purpose of
withdrawing them from periodical change. Should this
very circumstance make arbitrary removals more justi
fiable than they would be in the case of a fixed term? Of
course, I say nothing against removals for good cause.
But can the mere fact that such officers were appointed
for indefinite terms, be taken to furnish in itself sufficient
cause for removal? In this case the repeal of the four-
years-term law, for which the Civil Service Reform Asso
ciation have petitioned, would make official tenure only
less secure.
Excuse the length of this letter, remembering that I
mean well. Again I thank you for the good things you
have done and congratulate you on the golden opinions
you have won.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, June 28, 1885.
I am obliged to encroach upon your time again. The
writer of the enclosed letters, Mr. Wm. Means, was mayor
of Cincinnati a few years ago, a Democratic "Reform
Mayor," and is, I believe, a gentleman of good standing
in that community. I made his acquaintance last year
when I was speaking in Ohio and went through the singu
lar experience of finding myself vilified more atrociously
than I had ever been vilified before, at the rate of about
three columns a day, by the paper pretending to be in
that State the principal organ of the party whose Presi
dential candidate I was working for. This circumstance
led Mr. Means to speak to me; and thus to introduce
himself at that time.
I said to him in reply to his first letter that I was not
in the habit of writing to you about individual candidates
1885] Carl Schurz 405
for office, but that, if he desired it, I would communicate
his letter to you, and that I was sure you would be glad
to get in such cases the best information that could be had.
He authorized me to send you his letter, and I now do so.
Of the persons mentioned by him I know nothing.
Let me mention also, by the way, that I have a letter
from a friend in Cleveland who informs me that the newly
appointed collector of internal revenue there, John Farley,
loudly proclaims that civil service reform is nonsense, and
that he is going to remove all the employees connected
with his office, some of whom have been very efficient,
and one of the best of whom was on your side in the last
election. I mention this for what it may be worth for
the purpose of suggesting that it might be well to caution
the new appointees in this respect. Some of them may be
apt to do considerable mischief and to create much ill
feeling and prejudice against the Administration by such
proceedings.
I cannot tell you how glad of every occasion I am to
congratulate you on a success, and how loath to find fault.
But my devotion to our common cause, as well as my
personal feeling for you, makes it a duty to say something
to you about your customhouse appointments. The ap
pointment of Burt is the ideal one, provided there is
sufficient reason for the removal of Graham. If there is
not, the Senate will be likely to reject Burt. But as to
Mr. Hedden, x I fear you will have made a grave mistake.
Whatever recommendations may have been procured
from business men, it is universally believed that Mr.
Hedden would never have been thought of as a candidate,
had not Mr. Hubert O. Thompson " in vented" him.
Nobody would assume that Mr. Thompson put him for
ward for the purpose of reforming the public service.'
There is a feeling in the community that the Administra-
1 See letter of Sept. 17, 1885.
406 The Writings of [1885
tion might stand in a better light, in some respects at least,
had it appointed Mr. Thompson himself instead of putting
him in power under a very thin disguise. This is what I
have heard said a dozen times by very respectable men.
I enclose an article from yesterday's Times. It is sub
stantially what I have no doubt a large majority of our
people think, although they may express themselves more
mildly as the Evening Post does. You will also notice
the Mephistophelian grin of the Sun. As to my own
feelings I must confess this appointment revives my first
misgivings that New York politics may become the rock
upon which your Administration will wreck itself; that
right there will always be the source of advice dangerous
to your good name and to success in the accomplishment
of your best purposes ; that this appointment was obtained
from you to put the customhouse under the control of a
political machine; that it will be so used without your
knowing it, and that you will become aware of the true
state of things when it is too late to prevent the mischief.
Pardon my frankness. I feel very anxious about this
thing.
TO LUCIUS B. SWIFT
no W. 34TH ST.,
NEW YORK, Aug. 25, 1885.
I have attentively read the papers which you have
sent to me from time to time. As you know, I earnestly
sympathize with you as to the main question. But it
seems to me that the criticism passed by the [Indianapolis]
Evening News upon the Eastern Mugwumps, as repre
sented by the New York Times, is too severe. We have
gone through all sorts of experiences here. There have
been many things done by the Administration [which] at
isssi Carl Schurz 407
first sight [were] extremely displeasing, but many of them
after a while put in such a shape as to mark, after all, a
movement in the right direction. Thus we have become
accustomed not to see in every occasional lapse a complete
abandonment of the whole civil service reform policy. I
myself look at the failure at Indianapolis, deplorable as it
is, in the same light. It indicates that there is still a great
deal to be struggled for, but it does not indicate that our
struggles so far have been in vain, or that our struggles
in [the] future will be hopeless. On the contrary you will
find that, whatever disappointments we may have suffered,
the disappointments on the other side are infinitely more
severe. I do not think the News is just when it says the
Eastern Mugwumps have virtually become Democratic
partisans and sycophants of the Administration under
any circumstances. I know that it is not so.
I think, if you have further charges against Jones, they
ought to be communicated to the President — of course in
such a way as to avoid all appearance of persecution. I
have no doubt he means to do right, even if he is sometimes
ill advised.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Sept. 17, 1885.
The enclosed letter I received from ex- President Hayes
with the request, if I had a friend in the Administration,
to communicate it to him. I beg leave to submit it to you.
I also take the liberty of bringing to your notice some
articles of the Evening Post on the Bacon case. I am with
deepest regret obliged to say that they fairly express the
feeling which at this moment prevails among our common
friends here. I wrote to you at the time of Mr. Hedden's
and Mr. Beattie's appointment [respectively as collector
and as surveyor of the port of New York], that while they,
408 The Writings of UBSS
or rather their backers, were in control of the customhouse,
all sorts of things in violation of your principles and pledges
would be done, or attempted to be done there, without
your knowledge. It seems I was not far out of the way.
Similar mistakes made here and there have not yet called
forth open demonstrations of feeling like those of the
Evening Post; however, the respect which is entertained
for your character and the confidence in the rectitude of
your intentions have inspired hope and restrained criti
cism. But it becomes clearer every day that no reform
Administration can succeed, and the best intentions on
the part of the President will not prevent failure and
disgrace, if those exercising power under him do not
honestly sympathize with him in his principles and aims.
The open opposition of your policy among the members of
the party is not half as dangerous to your success and not
one-thousandth part as dangerous to your honor as the
bad faith or indifference of men entrusted with the
execution of your views and the redemption of your
promises.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Sept. 23, 1885.
Permit me to offer you my personal thanks for the steps
you have taken in the Bacon-Sterling1 affair. You have
given new courage to the friends of good government. I
hope the investigation you have ordered will go to the
bottom of the matter and, as a result, it will become
clear that there is no impunity for any officer of the Gov
ernment, high or low, who trifles with the character of the
Administration.
1 Sterling, who had recently been appointed weigher in the New York
customhouse, in place of Captain Bacon, had been suspended, and Col
lector Hedden had been ordered to report on the facts.
1885] Carl Schurz 409
The anti-reform movement in the Democratic party
seems to be gathering considerable momentum, and it
looks as if the meeting of Congress would bring a tremen
dous pressure upon you with threats of active opposition.
My experience in public life leads me to believe that there
is one way, and only one, to break the force of this move
ment at the start and thus to ensure its defeat; and that
is, not to make any compromise with it, but to meet it at
once with calm, and if necessary, defiant determination.
As soon as these gentlemen hear from you that whatever
they may say or do, they cannot move you an inch, and
that you are at any moment ready to appeal to the coun
try against them, so that all may know whether the Ameri
can people will stand by a President who is honestly
resolved to redeem his promises — most of them will come
to the conclusion that you are stronger than they are,
that yours is the winning cause and that the best they
can do for themselves is to follow you. And if they do
not, you will have the people on your side.
Let me repeat once more: Your greatest danger is in
having men in places of power under you who do not
sympathize with you in your endeavors.
TO ALFRED T. WHITE
NEW YORK, Oct. 12, 1885.
I have read the resolutions of the Brooklyn Independent
Republican Committee with great pleasure, and from the
expression of my views on the present situation, for which
you ask me, you will see that we are in substantial accord.
The coming election presents itself in two aspects.
In the first place, it is an election of State officers. We
have therefore to select among the candidates those whose
character, whose past career and whose known opinions
410 The Writings of [1885
furnish the best evidence of their fitness for the positions
they are to occupy if elected. We have to choose between
Mr. Davenport and Mr. Hill for the governorship. Both
have been in conspicuous positions which tested their
qualities. Mr. Davenport has proved himself a man of
ability and high character, thoroughly devoted to his
public duties, and in sincere sympathy with those reform
movements which aim at the improvement of the public
service and the elevation of our whole political life. Mr.
Hill has on many occasions proved that he looks upon
official power as a means of party service and of personal
advancement, regardless of the public interest, and that he
is in thorough accord with that class of politicians who do
all in their power to obstruct and defeat a healthy reforma
tion of our public concerns, and thus to keep alive those
demoralizing practices which for so long a period have
degraded our political life and endangered the public
welfare. They are both partisans, but Mr. Davenport
represents the best tendencies, not only in his own, but
in both political parties, and Mr. Hill the worst.
These are well-known facts, which might be regarded
as sufficient to induce us as citizens of New York, whose
duty it is to look to the good of the State, to prefer Mr.
Davenport to Mr. Hill. The candidates for the other
State offices should be treated, respectively, according to
the same principle.
In the second place, we have to consider how the result
of our State election may affect the general interests of
the country. We have a President who is honestly and
earnestly endeavoring to carry out certain reforms of the
highest importance. In this endeavor he is embarrassed
and obstructed by a very active element in his own party,
which insists upon the distribution of the public offices as
spoils, upon the organization of the public service as a
party machine and upon breaking down whatever stands
Carl Schurz 411
in the way in the shape of laws or regulations or adopted
methods and practices. Of this element Mr. Hill is a
recognized representative. Now, it is clear that, if Mr.
Hill, as a representative anti-reform man, is this year
defeated in this important State of New York, in which
last year another Democratic candidate was victorious
as a representative reformer, the anti-reform element
which seeks to baffle the President's efforts will thereby
be materially weakened, and the cause of reform will gain
new strength. Mr. Hill ought, therefore, to be defeated.
But we are told that President Cleveland himself is
going to vote for the Democratic candidates, Mr. Hill
included. This does not change the nature of the case
in the least. That he is in a very difficult situation
we all know. It is his privilege to regulate his relations
with his party in his own way, and it is our business as
friends of reform to do our duty to our cause in our way.
It is a gratifying and a significant fact that the Inde
pendents in this State, who last year cut loose from their
party connections to support Mr. Cleveland for the
Presidency, this year, without any previous consultation,
simply obeying a common impulse, recognize their duty
upon the same principles to support Mr. Davenport for
the governorship. But in order to secure to their en
deavors, which, it is hoped, will be as successful this year
as last, their full effect upon the political situation, it is
important that the Independents should not permit their
conduct to be misinterpreted.
There has already been much foolish talk in the news
papers about what they call our "change of sides," our
"returning to the fold " and so on. It should be generally
understood that there is on our part no change at all, that
we are acting upon exactly the same principles this year
as last ; that upon these principles we should support Mr.
Davenport if he were a Democrat and oppose Mr. Hill
412 The Writings of [1885
if he were a Republican; that there is no "returning to the
fold" this year, as there was no going into a fold last year,
and that we shall be found ready, in the future as in the
present and the past, to support the Davenports as against
the Hills under whatever party names they may appear.
It should further be understood that while the Inde
pendents will support Mr. Davenport for the governorship,
they protest most emphatically against the unjust attacks
made upon President Cleveland in the Republican plat
form, as well as against those declarations which are
designed to make party capital by a revival of sectional
prejudice and ill-feeling between the North and the South.
That President Cleveland has made mistakes no candid
man will deny; but, on the other hand, no candid man can
deny that he has rendered the cause of reform very great
service. The professions of Republican politicians in
favor of civil service reform would deserve and receive
much more confidence if, while censuring real mistakes or
violations of correct principle, they proved themselves at
the same time willing to encourage with just recognition
all the good that is done and all the honest efforts that are
made in the right direction, no matter under what party
auspices. And as to the Southern question, everybody
knows that there has been of late years an immense
change for the better in the South; that the dis
union feeling of old times has entirely yielded to a new
National spirit; that the condition of the colored people
as to their prosperity and the protection of their rights, as
well as the relations between the two races, is now much
more satisfactory than it ever has been; that meetings of
colored men in the South themselves protest against the
demagogic clamor in the North about their wrongs; that
the existence of the evils denounced by Republican
politicians would only prove the failure of the Republican
party during its long possession of power to remedy them,
1885] Carl Schurz 413
and that if restored to power it would let things go just
as they are going. Their denunciatory talk about the
South is, therefore, more than idle — it is as an incentive
to sectional animosities for the benefit of a party, vicious
and unpatriotic clap-trap. And the Independents do not
desire their support of Mr. Davenport to be construed as
approving anything of the sort.
In defining the position of the Independents as every one
of them would define it, I do not mean to say that they
renounce forever all more permanent party attachments.
On the contrary, they look forward to the time when such
attachments may be again advisable. But at present we
are passing through a period of transition. There are no
clearly defined differences of principle or policy between
the two great parties. Their platforms, except in their
mutual denunciations, read remarkably alike. The ques
tion between them which most concerns the public interest
is mainly that of good administration. The issue between
them in this respect is not made up by their platform
declarations, but practically, by their nominations of can
didates. These nominations have been on either side some
times good and sometimes bad, which indicates that they
are not made according to a fixed standard. As long as
this condition of things prevails we shall render the best
service to the public interest by supporting in each case
the best men representing the best methods, regardless of
party. The more a party identifies itself with the reforms
aimed at, the steadier the Independents will be in the
support of its candidates. A party, old or new, making it
self in its organization, as well as its professed principles,
a trustworthy champion of these reforms, would count
them among its most faithful members. And when at
last these reforms shall have become so firmly rooted in the
laws of the Republic and the practices of our political life
that they cease to be an issue in our elections, differences
4H The Writings of
of opinion on other subjects will form the dividing line
and the Independents no doubt will attach themselves to
this or that party according to the opinions they hold on
the questions then most important. Much will be done,
I apprehend, toward bringing on so auspicious a condition
of things by practically demonstrating to the satisfaction
of both political parties that on either side the Davenports
can and the Hills can not be elected to high office.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Jan. 16, 1886.
The relations between the Administration and the
Senate concerning the matter of suspensions from office
are attracting general attention. A few days ago I was
asked by a newspaper man for a statement of my views
on that subject, but I prefer, if you will permit me, first
to say to you what I should have said to him. It is
as follows:
The law as it now stands does not oblige the President
to communicate to the Senate his reasons for the removals
or suspensions he has made. He may therefore decline
to give such reasons. But, while the law does not com
mand, it does not prohibit. The President is at liberty
to give his reasons if he chooses. Should he, under existing
circumstances, avail himself of that permission?
Your letter of December 25, 1884, addressed to Mr.
Curtis, was generally understood as a distinct pledge that
under your Administration no good officer, who had not
made himself an offensive partisan, would be removed be
fore the expiration of his term. It would have been an
insult to you had your pledge at that time not been taken
as seriously meant. It would be disrespectful to you to
treat it now as a trifling matter. I, therefore, do not at
Carl Schurz 415
all agree with those who say that, when you remove one
man and appoint another, the only important thing is the
quality of the man appointed, and not the reasons for the
removal. On the contrary, it seems to me that the public
pledge of the President makes his reasons for making re
movals a matter of first importance. If our public life is
to be saved from its demoralization it is essential that the
promises of political parties and of public men should
again count for something. It is of the highest conse
quence to the American people that the public pledge of
a President should be regarded as a moral obligation of the
very first order, which nobody would dare to make light of.
It is impossible to overestimate the value of a conspicuous
example of the strictest fidelity in this respect.
Your reasons for making removals are, therefore, of
the greatest public interest, for upon their character
depends the answer to the question whether the pledge
has been kept or not.
What, then, should be done when those reasons are
inquired into by persons entitled to respect? All should
be done that can be done to sustain the belief of the people
in the good faith of the President. How does the case
stand at present? Those reasons are questioned by
Senators who, whatever their motives may be, are en
titled to consideration as members of the highest legislative
body. But — as the truth should be told — the questioning
is not confined to the Senate. It is very generally be
lieved among the people that removals have been made in
violation of the President's pledge. Whether this popular
belief be well founded or not, it certainly exists. It is also
very widely believed that President Cleveland has hon
estly meant to keep his pledge but that he has been misled
by men upon the good faith and discernment of whose
advice he depended in making removals and appoint
ments, the responsibility for all of this falling upon him.
4i 6 The Writings of [1886
Under such circumstances a mere refusal to communi
cate, or to permit the heads of Departments to communi
cate to the Senate the information that may be asked for,
would, however some newspapers might applaud such a
step, be regarded by candid and soberly thinking men as
an evasion. It would be thought that if the President's
pledge had been well kept, the Administration would find
very little difficulty in announcing that fact. It would be
useless to speak of the law not providing for such communi
cations, or of encroachments by the Senate upon the
rights of the Executive, when every well informed man
knows that the President might make such communica
tion to the Senate as a voluntary act of courtesy, expressly
reserving all the legal rights of the Executive. It would
be equally useless to say that the information had been
asked for by Senators from factious motives and for hostile
purposes, when everybody knows that nothing would
more utterly confound the factionists than a clear showing
of strict fidelity to the President's pledge. A flat refusal,
or a mere general answer that the removals had been
made for the good of the service, would therefore be quite
generally taken as equivalent to a confession that the
President's pledge had not been kept. If in examining
the cases in the light in which they are now coming to
your attention, you find that in point of fact your pledge
has been violated, no evasion, no shifting of the issue, will
avail to conceal that fact. It would only aggravate the
difficulty. It seems to me, therefore, that those who
advise such a course, fail to keep the honor of the President
and the moral effect of the whole proceeding sufficiently
in view.
If the Administration should not be able to make a
clear showing, the frankest and most courageous course
would, as usual, still be the safest refuge. The President,
while letting the world know what had happened and how
i886] Carl Schurz 417
it happened, would be able to retrieve his moral standing
before the people by doing all in his power to redress the
wrongs which the violation of his pledge had brought with
it. Those wrongs are of a very grave character. Evi
dently, whenever the rule has been proclaimed that no
officer shall be removed except for cause, a removal will
mean much more than it otherwise would. It will reflect
seriously upon the character or business ability of the
person removed. Any officer, therefore, removed without
good cause, has been most unjustly injured in his charac
ter and reputation, and thus grossly wronged. It will
scarcely do to say that under present circumstances
removals are not so interpreted; for that would be
equivalent to saying that President Cleveland's pledge not
to remove any officer except for cause, including offensive
partisanship, was a sham and entitled to no more credit
than the shallow pretenses of any ordinary politician.
Now, if the President in some cases, in which he had
convinced himself that, in violation of his pledge, gross
wrong had been done, would use his power to redress
that wrong by reappointing the person wronged, his
moral prestige would be retrieved and the dignity of
a Presidential pledge saved, in spite of all that had
happened.
But another wrong done to the President himself calls
for equal attention. No man can do anything more
injurious to the President, nay, more insulting to him,
than to induce him either by false information or mislead
ing advice to dishonor an important public promise given
to the people, and thus to make him responsible for a
thing which he would never have thought of doing of his
own motion. The President, I think, would do justice
to nimself and to his high trust, only by holding to the
severest account any officer under him guilty of such
scandalous disloyalty. And now the reasons for removals
VOL. IV. — 27
4i 8 The Writings of [1886
being asked for, there is an excellent opportunity for
ascertaining who among the officers of the Government
has so betrayed him.
These may look like heroic remedies, but if it is true
that a public pledge of the President has been violated,
and a pledge, too, that had been believed in more than any
other similar one for many years, then no remedy can
be too heroic to avert the demoralization which such an
event, unredressed, would inevitably bring in its train.
A case in which with the public good, also a question of
honor is involved, would seem to make heroic remedies
appear the most natural ones.
I think I fully appreciate the difficulties of your position.
In one of my first letters to you I endeavored to point out
that the greatest danger to a reform Administration con
sisted not in general attacks upon its system, but in in
sinuating requests from apparently friendly quarters for
this and that little concession, and in the disposition of
the Administration to yield one little thing after another,
until it finally woke up to the fact that it had yielded its
whole character, and further, that however firm might be
your own resolution to carry out your promises and pur
poses, your honor and good faith would be in a great
measure at the mercy of those wielding authority under
you, and that disappointment and failure were almost
certain unless your subordinates were in hearty accord
with your principles and objects or kept in the strictest
discipline. I venture to say that if the Administration
is now embarrassed, it is from these causes, and then
none but heroic remedies will avail. The consequences
of a lack of that accord or discipline are illustrated
by the following letter in which an internal revenue
collector in Virginia makes wanton and insolent sport
of the President's reform policy, plainly defying his
displeasure:
i886] Carl Schurz 419
U. S. INTERNAL REVENUE DEPUTY COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,
RICHMOND, Sept. 5, 1885.
H. S. NICHOLS,
NORFOLK, VA.
Dear Sir: It affords me pleasure to say that your duties
as stamp collector at Norfolk for the period from I5th of
June to 3ist August, 1885, were entirely satisfactory. Your
removal from office was not from any delinquency of duty or
inefficiency but entirely upon the principle that "to the victor
belong the spoils" — you being an appointee of the Mahone
Republican party. I wish you health and prosperity in the
future, which I think you deserve.
Very truly yours,
A. L. ELLETT, Collector.
That collector's name is now before the Senate. If
the Administration chose to put up with so defiant a
demonstration of offensive partisanship and of contempt
for its reform principles, I should, were I a member of the
Senate, certainly vote for his rejection, from respect for
the President.
I have of late had occasion carefully to study the debates
in Congress on the power of appointment and removal,
from the first Congress to the present time, and I have
come to the conclusion that a law making it the duty of
the Executive to communicate the reasons for removals
made to the Senate and to put them on record accessible
to the public would not only be Constitutional, but a very
great help to a reform Administration. What a blessing
it would have been to you and to your Cabinet officers
had you and they, whenever a removal was urged by
politicians, been able to say that no removal could be
made except for reasons publicly to be avowed and
answered for upon the responsibility of the Executive ! It
is indeed said that sometimes removals have to be made,
the reasons for which cannot be disclosed. I answer that
420 The Writings of [1886
in my four years' experience at the head of one of the
most difficult Departments, I have never known such a
case. I then believed, as I do now, that such a law, or
in the absence of it, such an established practice, would
prevent a vast deal of trouble and mischief and that its
benefits would far outweigh any inconvenience.
Pardon the length and straightforwardness of this
letter. I feel very strongly on the subject of it. Stand
ing by you with full confidence in the integrity and
earnestness of your purpose and with warm personal at
tachment, I could not well be silent at a crisis the result
of which may seriously affect your success and even
more.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
175 WEST 58TH ST.
NEW YORK, Feb. i, 1886.
I felt as if I could scarcely trust my eyes when I saw
in this morning's newspapers the announcement that Mrs.
Bayard too1 had been snatched from your side. I too
know what it is to be bereft of the companion of one's
life, but not many men have had to bear so sudden an
accumulation of grief as that which now has fallen upon
you. It is unnecessary to say that you have more than
ever the heartfelt sympathy of those who know and
love you as I do; even the indifferent multitude are
touched in their hearts at beholding such bereavements.
I trust your strength will not fail you in bearing it all.
I was glad for your sake when I heard the rumor denied
that you intended to give up your official position 2 for the
purpose of seeking recreation in foreign travel. There is
nothing more invigorating to the soul of a man in such
1 Mr. Schurz had recently sent condolence on a-ccount of the death of
one of Mr. Bayard's daughters. 2 Secretaryship of State.
i886] Carl Schurz 421
sorrow than devotion to great duties and the arduous
pursuit of high aims.
With affectionate sympathy, I am,
Ever your friend.
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
Feb. 5, 1886.
At the risk of appearing importunate, I address you
again. I have been very much affected by what our
friend Colonel Burt told me of your feeling that, after
your resistance to the demands of your own party friends,
you were now suspected of deceiving the people, and that
too, by men upon whose support you should have been
able to count. Colonel Burt seemed to think that my
letter had strengthened that impression in your mind.
Believe me when I say that, if I entertained such a sus
picion in the faintest degree, I should certainly not have
written to you at all. It is just because I have the
strongest confidence in your sincerity and highly appre
ciate the noble stand you have taken with regard to your
own party, as well as the difficulties and struggles you have
had to go through, that I should grieve to see you drift
into a false position which [is] likely to deprive you of the
credit you deserve, and the country of many of the fruits
of your endeavors.
According to Colonel Burt you had also received from
my letter the impression as if I thought you had pledged
yourself to communicate to the Senate the reasons for
removals. I certainly did not intend to convey any such
meaning. What I did mean was that your letter to Mr.
Curtis was understood to contain a distinct pledge not to
make any removals for mere partisan reasons; that when
the performance of that pledge was questioned by persons
entitled to consideration, you could not afford to use your
The Writings of [1886
Constitutional privilege as a cover for refusal of all in
formation on the subject; that the pledge of the President
made the reasons for removals a matter of high public
importance; that, to rescue our political life from its de
moralization, it was necessary that the pledges of par
ties and of public men should again count for something,
and that, therefore, whatever disposition was made of this
matter, it should be such as to sustain the confidence of
the people in the good faith of the President.
Consider the aspect of the case. The Republican
Senators are not going to let the matter rest. Some of
them are in possession of cases of removal which have
an ugly partisan look. You refuse all information about
them. They contrive some way of investigating them,
and they certainly have the power and are very likely to
do that. Some of the cases in question are brought out
before the public on mere partisan grounds in direct
violation of your pledge. Suppose this contingency. In
what light will it leave you? As a President who had
made a public pledge; who, when questioned about its
fulfilment, sheltered himself behind his Constitutional
privilege to avoid giving any information; who thus did
all, as far as his power went, to conceal the truth, but who
could after all not prevent the truth from coming out in
spite of him. In that case the charge would be, not only
that your pledge had been violated, but that you had done
all in your power to conceal and suppress the evidence.
Have you considered that contingency?
Whatever the Constitutional privileges of the Execu
tive may be, I know that I express your own feeling when
I say that President Cleveland cannot afford to have any
concealments of that kind. "Tell the truth" was the
word that helped him and his friends over the most
dangerous crisis in his campaign, and "Tell the truth"
is the solution of the present complication.
Carl Schurz 423
Things having gone so far, you may think that you
cannot make any communication of the kind to the
Senate, not even as an act of courtesy and with an explicit
reservation of the rights of the Executive. You may also
think that the heroic remedies I proposed in my last
letter were too heroic — although I fear you will, before you
leave the Presidential chair, wish you had adopted them.
But is not there a middle course still open to you? If
you will not now open yourself to the Senate, can you not
take the people into your confidence? Can you not make
a declaration in some shape, which may go before the
public in an authoritative form, stating that you did make
such and such a pledge ; that — assuming it to be the case
in the confusion of the beginning of the Administration
some removals have been made, much against your in
tention, which were not in accord with that pledge; that
you refused laying your reasons for removals before the
Senate because of Constitutional considerations ; but that
you do not mean to conceal anything, and are resolved
to deal frankly with the people? And then, can you not,
in addition, issue an Executive order, that henceforth in
every case of removal the reasons therefor shall be put
upon public record?
By such a voluntary declaration you will not only
do what is in best accord with your character, but also
avoid that greatest of your present dangers that things
incompatible with your pledge be proven after an apparent
attempt on your part to conceal the evidence, for you will
then have forestalled whatever may come out. And, sec
ondly, by the Executive order you will give an additional
proof of your good faith, relieve yourself and your Secre
taries of much importunity and introduce a very im
portant and wholesome reform. Possibly your Cabinet
ministers may at first not favor this. But I know from
my experience that it is entirely practicable, and, more-
424 The Writings of
over, this is a case for him to decide whose moral standing
with the people is most important and most at stake.
I am so firmly convinced of the wholesomeness of the
practice of regularly recording the reasons for removals,
that at the last meeting of the Civil Service Association
here, I introduced a resolution recommending its intro
duction either by law or Executive regulation, and it is
probable that something to that effect will be adopted at
the meeting of the executive committee of the National
Civil Service Reform League which will meet on February
1 6th, the same body to which you addressed your letter
containing the pledge concerning removals. Would it
not be a happy circumstance if before that time an Execu
tive order like the one here suggested were already issued,
so that we might pass a resolution of congratulation
instead of one recommending such a step to be taken?
Pardon me for cautioning you against a class of persons
whom I know from my own experience, — persons trying
to ingratiate themselves with men in power by telling
them that those who find fault are a set of mere malevo-
lents and that everything is "all right" with the people.
In this respect the atmosphere of Washington is pe
culiarly deceitful. It is not "all right with the people "
in the present instance. There is much criticism of the
removals outside of the circle of hostile partisan Senators.
I regret to say that I have in my possession a considerable
number of letters from Maryland, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois,
Wisconsin and even from New England, letters from men
who supported you, and many of whom write to me be
cause they followed my leadership in 1884, that, judging
from the removals and appointments they witness in
their vicinity, it is "after all pretty much the old thing
over again." This, of course, is extremely unjust, for
they overlook the great good that you have really accom
plished. But it is a kind of injustice to which all those
Carl Schurz 425
who are trying to work out difficult reforms are frequently
exposed, for even well meaning people are apt to be more
mindful of bad things near them than of good things
farther away. To this is also owing the danger of reform
Administrations to sit down between two chairs, going
far enough to exasperate the opponents of reform and not
far enough to satisfy the bulk of its friends. That such a
feeling of dissatisfaction as above described exists among
our friends, is much to be deplored. And I have found
that letters and newspaper articles are not sufficient to
allay it. The answer that we Eastern Independents seem
determined "to see no evil in anything the Administra
tion may do," and that this is unfortunate, comes
back with increasing frequency, and it has a significant
meaning.
Believe me, nothing is more distasteful to me than the
duty of saying unpleasant things, and I perform it at a
present sacrifice of feeling, in the hope of having all the
more pleasant things to say hereafter, and publicly.
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 1886.
Accept my thanks for the copy of your report which you
had the kindness to send me. I suppose the resolutions
recently passed by the National Civil Service Reform
League have been forwarded to you. The first three of
them recommending publicity in all things connected
with appointments and removals seem to me entitled
to especial consideration. In my whole legislative and
executive experience I have never known a case of re
moval in which it would not have been perfectly feasible
and proper to put the reasons for such removal (provided
they were proper ones) upon record, nor a nomination
426 The Writings of [1886
which might not have been discussed and voted upon in
open, just as well as in secret session of the Senate. And
what I know of the public service convinces me very
strongly that the treatment of all recommendations and
other papers concerning appointments or removals as
public documents, part of the public records, would be a
great reform in itself.
I am also convinced that the moral authority of the
Senate with regard to the appointment and removal
question is very seriously impaired by the secrecy of its
proceedings and that the influence for good of the best
elements in it would be greatly strengthened by opening its
doors. Would not the present occasion be a most proper
and auspicious one for so important a step in the right
direction?
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
NEW YORK, March 12, 1886.
Am I presuming too much upon your kindness if I ask
you to send me also Mr. Wilson's speech?
I am one of those who follow this debate with great
interest and in a spirit of entire impartiality. I want
simply the truth to prevail, justice to be done and the
cause of good government to be advanced. Now I must
confess I was shocked when I read in the papers this
morning that the Senate, after listening to an arraignment
of the President for unjust suspensions, went into secret
session and confirmed, at the solicitation of a leading
Republican Senator, R. S. Dement of Illinois, who had
been nominated in the place of a suspended officer, and
that officer a man who during the war for the Union had
conducted himself so gallantly that he was promoted to a
major-generalship for skill and bravery in the field. This
case, if any, seemed to be fit to be made a test case. But
i886] Carl Schurz 427
when this is thrown aside and eliminated from all further
inquiry, merely because, as is reported, a Republican
Senator feels himself under some personal obligation to
the person nominated, and that person supposed to be a
very unfit one for the place, then the whole warfare of the
Republicans in the Senate is in great danger of falling
into contempt for apparent want of sincerity.
It seems to me there is but one way to make that which
is now going on in the Senate, serve the cause of good
government instead of leading to a restoration of the
spoils system pure and simple, — and that is to make the
executive sessions of the Senate, as far as appointments
of office are concerned, public. There is no doubt, the
Senate has lost grievously in public estimation — and I
say that with great sorrow, for I deeply appreciate its
importance in our political system. It will continue to
lose as long as it authorizes the suspicion that it covers
office jobbery by the secrecy of its proceedings. Is not
this the proper time to relieve it of this odium? And are
not you the man to take the lead in effecting so wholesome
a reform?
P. S. March I9th. I see a curious report from Wash
ington in the Times this morning. It is that the Finance
Committee of the Senate has asked the Secretary of the
Treasury whether there are any specific charges against
suspended officers, and that in cases in which they are
told by the Secretary that there are no charges affecting
the moral or official character of the suspended officer,
they will proceed with the consideration of the nomina
tions made. Does this mean that in cases where the public
interest was confessedly well served, or where there was at
least no charge that it was badly served, suspensions are
to be treated as justifiable, while in cases where there are
charges affecting the moral or official character of the
428 The Writings of [1886
suspended officers, the propriety of the suspension is to
be questioned? It strikes me that, if the cause of justice
and of good government is to be subserved, the rule ought
to be the reverse. Where there are no charges, the ques
tion comes in rightly : Why, then, was this man suspended?
And if offensive partisanship is alleged, — a reason for
removal which seems to me perfectly legitimate provided
the rule be impartially applied, — the question would be :
Was he really an offensive partisan according to the defini
tion adopted? (All this the Senate can ascertain to the
satisfaction of the public if it proceeds publicly.)
If the rule adopted by the Finance Committee is as the
Times reports it, it will give color to the allegation that
the Republicans of the Senate only want the President
to admit that he has made partisan removals, and this
merely to justify the Republicans in declaring the spoils
system to be after all the orthodox creed of both parties.
It is the legitimate business of the opposition to show, if it
can, that those in power have not been true to their
pledges. But if that opposition wants to win the public
confidence and to benefit the public interest, it must, in
doing so, set up a higher standard for itself.
FROM GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
SENATE CHAMBER,
WASHINGTON, March 17, 1886.
Yours of the I2th inst. was duly received. I have been so
busy the last few days that I could not reply at once. As
you understand, I am not at liberty in honor and duty to ex
plain any discussions, or cliques, or difficulties among Senators
when the doors are closed. Of course, if any such thing as
you imagine took place, it was in violation of what both
parties profess as their grateful duty toward ex-soldiers.
I note what you say about secret sessions, but I think the
i886] Carl Schurz 429
error into which you and the public press fall is in not distin
guishing between official papers and documents regarding
home administration, which I agree ought almost always to
be fully open to public inspection and discussions, etc., in
considering a subject. It could hardly be considered for the
public interest that the Cabinet meetings, for instance, should
be open to the public, particularly in respect of suspensions of
public officers and selections for appointments, although in
the case of suspensions, the reasons for privacy would be much
less strong. The natural kindness of heart that most people
possess leads one to dislike to express unfavorable opinions
about the fitness or capacity of particular gentlemen for par
ticular offices, or to state publicly that they stand low in the
estimate of the community where they reside.
TO GEORGE FRED. WILLIAMS
NEW YORK, March 18, 1886.
My dear Mr. Williams: Your kind letter of the I3th
is in my hands. Let me thank you for the full report of
the Reform Club speeches which you had the goodness
to send me. You want my opinion about them?
I think it is well to give the President a full measure of
praise for the good he has done, and as much encourage
ment as possible to do more. At the same time I do not
think it is fair to him to permit him to believe that in the
opinion of the Independents nothing but good has been
done, and that they are in a state of unmixed delight.
Neither do I consider it just, or wise, to condemn every
severe criticism of the Administration, even if it be par
tisan in its character, as an unprincipled proceeding and an
unmitigated outrage. I have always thought it wrong
and mischievous to give the President to understand, that
nobody cared about the removals he made if only the
appointments were good, or that a dozen very good
appointments would offset a dozen or a score of very bad
430 The Writings of [1886
ones. It appears to me that the question whether the
President has kept his pledge not to make any partisan
removals, is of far greater importance than the question
whether the Senate is right in asking for papers concerning
suspensions. And if we answer the latter in the negative,
that is not answering the former in the affirmative. If
the debates now going on in the Senate serve to direct the
President's attention to that pledge and make him sen
sible of the necessity of holding all the members of his
Administration to it, it will be of very great benefit to
the cause of reform.
There is one thing the Independents cannot afford to
do; they cannot afford to appear as blind partisans of
anybody or anything. If they want to preserve their
healthy influence upon public opinion, they must take
care not to disturb the popular belief that they are at all
times ready to tell the truth, whether it be agreeable to
themselves or not. Before expressing their unconditional
approval of any given state of things, they must consider
whether they want the people to believe that this state
of things is the realization of the object of their endeavors.
If the question were to-day put to them : Is that which the
Administration is doing — is that the reform you have
been preaching and fighting for? — what would they say?
They would not say "Yes. " Then they must not permit
the people to believe that they are completely satisfied.
In other words, they should be as straightforward and
outspoken in their criticism as in their praise. It would
have served the President better if they had at all times
spoken about his failings as frankly as about his virtues.
From this you may conclude that the speeches at the
Reform Club dinner, although I agree with most of what
was said, appeared to me a little too one-sided. You did
perfectly right in speaking bluntly about the office-mon-
gering of the Democratic committees in Massachusetts,
Carl Schurz 431
and I was delighted to read what you said. I hope you
will not stop there but pursue the matter at Washington.
I do not so completely sympathize with you in what you
said about Edmunds. I think he went in 1884 about as
far as a man generally so much attached to party, and
holding high office under the auspices of his party, can be
expected to go. I admit that he did not go far enough to
suit me, but his conduct stood at any rate in very favor
able contrast to that of other Senators who were, before
the nomination, no less convinced than he, of Elaine's
dishonesty. Edmunds has some very good points and
valuable elements of usefulness in him. I suppose I am
more lenient in my judgment in such cases than you are,
because I am older and have often been judged harshly
myself.
The Senate have fearfully injured their case by the
confirmation of the nomination of Dement in the place of
General Salomon. I see they are now trying to reconsider
that step, but they cannot entirely undo the moral effect
produced by it. What a blessing a good, strong, search
ing but high-toned opposition would be to Cleveland's
Administration and to the cause of good government!
This letter is for you, of course. When will you be
here again? I hope anon.
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
NEW YORK, March 18, 1886.
Many thanks for your letter received to-day as well as
for the documents you have had the goodness to send me.
If I am not taxing you too much I should be obliged to
you for copies of all speeches delivered upon your resolu
tions. I take very great interest in the matter.
I have not forgotten the difference between papers
432 The Writings of [1886
bearing upon the conduct of public affairs and discussions
in considering nominations. But I do not think the dis
cussions in the Senate upon nominations can well be put
upon the same level with discussions in the Cabinet. The
relations between the President and the members of his
Cabinet are necessarily of a far more confidential nature
than the relations between the Executive and the Senate.
As to the "kindness of heart" which would lead one to
"dislike to express unfavorable opinions about the fitness
or capacity of particular gentlemen for particular offices, "
I judge from my own experience in the Senate, and I would
appeal to yours. I cannot remember a word I ever said
in executive session about any nomination that I would not
be perfectly willing to utter in public. And I have no
doubt it is so with you. But even if there should be some
inconvenience of that kind, how great is the mischief
that would be prevented! Would such a thing as the
confirmation of Dement have happened, had the proceed
ings been public? You know as well as I that even much
worse things have been done at one time or another which
would never have been done but for the secrecy enveloping
them. And as to suspensions, would not the discussion
in public nominations made to fill the places of suspended
officers, which would involve the justice of the suspensions,
be far more effective in preventing unjust ones, or in
exposing them when made, than what is now going on?
And the Senate would not need the papers now withheld,
for it would always be able to investigate the conduct of
the public business with regard to any particular office,
and it could easily get all the evidence required to
determine its own and the public judgments.
In addition, let me repeat, for it cannot be repeated
too often, the Senate has been for some time, and is now,
suffering terribly in public estimation in consequence
of its secret proceedings on nominations. And this, it
i886] Carl Schurz 433
seems to me, is a consideration of an importance infinitely
greater than any inconvenience that might arise from
publicity.
FROM GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
SENATE CHAMBER,
WASHINGTON, March 23, 1886.
I have yours of the i8th. I am so much pressed for time
that I cannot go into a discussion of the distinctions that I
think exist in respect of the subjects you mention. The real
truth is, as I believe upon a wide variety of evidence, that the
President did not find himself able to hold up to his professions
when he has been set upon by the whole body of Democratic
Senators and Members of Congress and the rest of the Demo
cratic party in the country — nine-tenths of whom believe, as
you doubtless know, that offices are the stakes for which
political parties play and are the spoils of victory. The official
letter of the Postmaster- General inviting accusations and
complaints as necessary, and stating that they would be
sufficient and stating that he had consulted the President,
would seem to show this conclusively to any mind that was
not determined to be blind.
TO GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
NEW YORK, March 25, 1886.
I do not wish to take your time with a lengthy
correspondence but beg leave to make one observation
in reply to your letter just received, without expecting
any answer.
If the President, yielding to party pressure, has broken
his pledges, — a matter about which a great many people,
of whom I am one, desire to be clearly advised, — the Senate
has it in its power to prove that fact without the "papers"
asked for. The Senate can refer case after case for
434 The Writings of U886
thorough inquiry to the respective committees ; these can,
by way of ordinary investigation, call upon Department
and bureau officers and others for information, about the
conduct of the public business at the time when the sus
pended officer was in place, and then ascertain whether
there was cause for the suspension. In a similar way it
can be ascertained whether the suspended officer was an
"offensive partisan. " For instance the case of General
Salomon, in whose place Dement was appointed, might
have been properly so treated. If such inquiries were
conducted openly, aboveboard, in broad daylight, they
would determine the public judgment. But such an
effect cannot be produced by the Senate receiving and
examining papers in secret conclave, and then pronouncing
verdicts after secret discussion of the reasons. I regret
to say — but it is a solemn truth — the secret proceedings
of the Senate in regard to such things have no longer the
confidence of the people. And it would be useless to dis
guise the fact, that the Republican majority of the Senate
has gained nothing by the debate now going on. On the
contrary it is bound to lose as long as it sticks to its secret
proceedings, with such things as the confirmation of
Dement, of Rasin and other similar cases breaking that
darkness with occasional streaks of light. It looks as if
the rule of secrecy were bound to yield before long, and
the party defending it will be at a great disadvantage in
public opinion.
FROM GEORGE F. EDMUNDS
SENATE CHAMBER,
WASHINGTON, March 26, 1886.
I have yours of the 25th. The trouble would be, in the way
you propose, precisely the one that now exists, with the further
complication that, in sending for persons and papers by a
i886] Carl Schurz 435
committee, the dignity of the Senate would require, if papers
were refused, that the refusing official should be punished for
contempt, and this proceeding, applied to all the instances,
would be somewhat cumbrous. The Departments do not
intend that the public or the Senate shall know the contents of
even the confessedly official papers in the files regarding the
administration [official conduct] of the people to be removed,
because, in the great mass of cases, it would doubtless appear
that their official behavior had been perfect and therefore their
proposed removal must be purely political. — In haste, yours
truly.
TO WAYNE MCVEAGH
NEW YORK, March 30, 1886.
I regret to say I cannot be with your Civil Service
Association on the 8th of April on account of an engage
ment I have on that day, which cannot be set aside.
It would be easy enough to "skin" some of the Presi
dent's accusers on that occasion ; but I am afraid it would
not be so easy to prove that they are altogether wrong.
Did any one of the President's defenders in the Senate
maintain that the President had really kept his word, that
is, had abstained from making any removal except for
cause including "offensive partisanship"? Is it not, on
the contrary, generally believed to-day that in not a few
instances that pledge had been violated? And can you
think of a greater service the President could have ren
dered to the American people as a reformer, than by
proving that there are public men who keep their pledges
strictly and without fear of consequences?
Now, do not understand me as undervaluing the good
things that Cleveland has done. But I confess to you
that the so-called pluck with which he repelled the demand
of the Senate for information concerning the reasons for
the suspensions made, does not strike me as that sort of
436 The Writings of U886
moral courage which the reform of the public service
stands in need of. A frank statement of the case, ex
pressly reserving, if you please, the Constitutional rights
of the Executive, would have served the cause of reform
better, and would have done him infinitely more honor.
I see reasons for fearing that this " reform Administra
tion" will end like its predecessors: sit down between two
chairs — do just enough to disgust the enemies of reform,
and not enough to satisfy its friends.
You see, I am not in a jubilant state of mind with re
gard to this subject, and would rather not make a public
speech on it just now. The only kind of power we Inde
pendents have springs from the popular belief that we
speak the truth without fear or favor. As soon as we for
feit that confidence by undue partiality, we are gone. I
could not speak without saying what I think, and at the
same time I should not like to touch that sore point hastily.
Do you not think I am right ? This of course is confiden
tial, but you might, in confidence, tell Messrs. Parish and
Wood why I do not send them a long letter in response to
the invitation.
TO W. H. CLARKE
April 30, 1886.
I have received your note of yesterday1 and beg leave
to say in reply that the occurrence to which you refer did
not take place in my presence but was related to me by
Charles Sumner. That the words quoted expressed Mr.
*NEW YORK, April 29, 1886.
Dear Sir: Did Mr. Lincoln use the following words in your presence:
"Behold this spectacle! We have conquered the rebellion, but here is a
greater danger to the country than was the rebellion"? He referred to
officeseekers. What other, if any, prominent man was present?
Yours respectfully,
W. H. CLARKE.
Carl Schurz 437
Lincoln's real sentiments, I know from my own experience.
I met Mr. Lincoln on board a steamer near City Point,
in the early spring of 1865, shortly before the capture of
Richmond. He told me then that he had left Washington,
partly because he wanted to be near the theater of the
important operations then going on, and partly because
he wanted to run away from the officeseekers, and he
added: "I am afraid that thing is going to ruin republican
government," and much more to the same effect. The
expression in quotation marks I remember particularly.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, May 6, 1886.
The enclosed correspondence, as I am informed, is
going the round of the newspapers. I am also told that
it is not altogether wrong in the description of impressions
prevailing in Administration circles. As my name is
conspicuously mentioned as one of those who are "more
disposed to blame than to commend" the President, it is
perhaps proper that I should say a word about it. I
should write to the President directly had not my last
letters to him remained without the courtesy of an
acknowledgment. But presuming upon your friendship I
would ask you to mention occasionally to the President,
that, while I, of course, reserve to myself the right of
freely expressing my opinions, I have made it a rule not
to say anything about him to others, that I have not said
about him to himself, and that in the letters I have
addressed to him are criticisms far more pointed than any
I have expressed to anybody else. And as to the disposi
tion rather to censure than to commend, I may add that
if anybody has borne the brunt of the battle for Mr.
Cleveland when he was a candidate, I have. If anybody
438 The Writings of U886
has had to suffer for it, I have. How could I possibly be
inclined to depreciate rather than commend the fruit of a
victory so dearly bought ? If there is a man in this coun
try who praises every good thing done by this Adminis
tration with real gladness and who feels every one of its
failures as painfully as if it were his own, I am that man.
And I can assure you, the Independents generally are of
the same way of thinking.
Now, as to my real opinion of the state and tendency of
things, I see good reasons to fear that the President will
finally sit down between two chairs, having done enough in
the way of reform to exasperate the spoils politicians, but
not enough to satisfy the reform sentiment and to make
converts. There are two ways out of this dilemma. One
is to throw all reformatory purposes overboard and to
unite the party by satisfying the spoils politicians. This,
however, will mean dishonor and certain defeat. The
other is to follow a bold reform policy which will appeal to
the best instincts of the people. This means a leadership
which, the more determined and uncompromising it is,
the more it will command popular respect and, probably,
party following. Partisans are apt to submit to a leader
who has the advantage of power and position, and whom
they know they cannot subjugate. In any event such a
policy will revive public confidence and win recruits of the
best kind, and thus a good chance of victory.
The Democratic party is not as strong to-day as it was
a year ago. The unfortunate practice of making removals
upon the ground of secret ex-parte charges has much weak
ened it. The helplessness of the majority in the House
presenting the spectacle of a party without a policy has
weakened it still more. And I am afraid the Jefferson
Davis business in the South, although some of the large
Republican papers take a sensible view of it, has furnished
to the demagogues just the political capital they wanted
i886] Carl Schurz 439
for the rural districts. If a new Presidential election were
to take place next fall, Elaine would inevitably be the
Republican candidate. I should, for my part, of course,
march to the breach again, but with a presentiment of
certain defeat.
President Cleveland can save the situation, and, as
things now stand, nobody else can. But he can do it only
if, as the honest and sincere man he is, he drops the policy
of gaining small points by management of the patronage,
and acts with the firmest determination upon his best
impulses. This would have been easier and more effec
tive a year ago than now; it will be easier and more
effective now than a year hence, for then it may be alto
gether too late. In my view, the boldest policy in situa
tions of this kind is the safest ; it is, in fact, the only safe
one. Every uncertain step brings forth new difficulties.
Every concession to an evil tendency creates a clamor for
more.
This is my diagnosis of the case. It is not prompted
by a hot and impatient temper. For that I am too old.
It is a conclusion drawn calmly and impartially from the
observations and experiences of a long public life.
Believe me when I say that I watch this Administration
with an intense and altogether friendly anxiety. I know
of few things that would be more disastrous to the country
and more painful to my feelings than its failure.
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WASHINGTON, May 8, 1886.
Since I received your letter of the 6th inst., I have not seen
the President, but I believe I know enough of him and his
sentiments to give no force or weight to the tenor of com
plaint by him of the attitude of the Independents toward his
Administration, which the newspaper cutting you sent me
44° The Writings of
contains. The truth is that the public press serves just now
as the mouthpiece of discontent in all its forms — from the
growl of the disappointed officeseeker to the venomous as
sault of the defeated jobber. If the public interests are to be
advanced, the petty rivulets of individual profits must be
closed up, and the latter process is painful, the former duty
generally thankless.
If I may speak of that portion of public affairs which pass
under my own hand and eye, I could give you a score of private
interests which have been interfered with by my presence in
the State Department, the vexation of each of which would
account for all the published expressions of desire to have
some other person in my place.
If I wanted to describe the position and objects of the
President, I should say that he cares less to please anybody
than to render true and permanent public service. I believe it
pains him when those who supported him in the canvass from
independent and personally disinterested motives express a
want of faith in his steadfastness in that line of administration
which he promised he would follow. Standing where he does,
viewing the field of battle in every direction, he comprehends
practical difficulties and deficiencies of means to overcome
them, that others cannot see or comprehend. In the first
place the imperfect nature of party success in 1884, which
transferred the Executive control to a Democratic President
but left the Senate in the hands of a well-drilled Republican
majority, which in turn was compelled to conciliate a faction
especially profligate and opposed to all reform in the "Re
adjusting ' ' element of Mahone and Riddleberger.
Of the House of Representatives I can only say that it
consisted of "solid" delegations from the Southern States,
whose only bond of political unity was safety from negro and
carpet-bag domination, and a party name. As to all questions
of administration — fiscal policies and foreign policies — qiioi
homines tot sentential.
To put an end to jobbery in its many phases was a logical
duty, and as you know it consists more in negation than in
affirmation. I really believe all men who really love honesty
i886] Carl Schurz 441
per se and hate its opposite, must feel wholly satisfied with
the President's course so far as measures and administrative
methods are concerned.
The reform of the civil service was the more difficult because
it had to be commenced so abruptly, and in such sharp con
trast with the system it was intended to replace. Therefore
it could not arise per saltum at a point of complete accomplish
ment, but of its substantial progress there can be no reasonable
denial. When I look over this Department and see one single
removal (for inebriety) and the place filled by a learned
international jurist (Dr. Wharton) — and the entire clerical
force left to enjoy conscientious self-respect in the performance
of duty — I feel that the highest demands of civil service have
been fully met.
Since Mr. Cleveland's inauguration no such obstruction to
civil service reform — no such contempt for every honest effort
in its behalf — no such withholding of aid has been exhibited
as the Republican majority of the United States Senate has
furnished. Surrounded thus by disappointed partisans of his
own party and without even a single just critic, much less an
assistant, in the Congressional ranks of his opponents, I can
see the difficulty of the President's course, but I believe it will
be this — to obliterate lines of geographical and sectional pre
judices and animosities, to dispel all apprehension of oppres
sion or injustice by the African race, to cause honesty and
efficiency to be the prevailing elements in filling offices, to
prevent public power from perversion to the ends of private
profit, and at the close of his term to secure an opportunity
for the people of the United States to pass judgment at the
polls without official interference or corruption or intimidation
and freely to select his successor.
I must believe that you are satisfied that such has been and
will be the course of the President and his Administration,
and that when you contrast it with what would have been in
case of Elaine's election, you must not only feel satisfied with
the important influence you exerted in the canvass of 1884,
but glad and grateful that the opportunity to render so great
and patriotic service was vouchsafed to you.
442 The Writings of [1886
My dear Schurz, the struggle between the elements that
save and those that destroy society will never cease, and no
man with your heart or brain can ever look coolly on and
witness the conflict without anxiety. I not only do not won
der at, but I expect from you, criticisms that betray your
vexation with every indication of weakness or unwisdom in a
party administration or management, to whom so much of
importance has been entrusted. Only this — do not hold the
President responsible for a condition of things he did not
create, and with which he is honestly endeavoring to do the
best he can, and that, too, without abandoning certain canons
of political and personal integrity, which we agree are essen
tials. There are elements of passion and mercenary interest
striving to mould party organizations to their own purposes,
and dexterous politicians are seeking to place themselves in
line and receive the propulsive power. They are
May 1 7th. Here I was stopped in my letter, which I
would destroy if I felt any confidence that I would get time
to write another.
I feel quite sure that the movement which so awakened
public conscience in 1884, and which had no advocate more
potential than yourself, has not ceased — that it is still aroused
[and] will, I trust, save the country from the fate which threat
ened it at the hands of mercenary organizations.
It is very difficult to get time for personal correspondence,
but I am always glad to hear from you whether you shall
praise or blame the work in which I am associated.
Suppose you come here and take a closer look at it ! I will
be most glad to give you a room in my house ; although grief
has clouded it of late, still I wish you would come.
This is a fearfully rambling answer, but it has been made
amid many interruptions.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, May 20, 1886.
Let me thank you for your kind letter, and also for your
invitation to come to Washington and look more closely
Carl Schurz 443
at what is going on. I should have done so ere this but
for two reasons : one that I apprehend, if I were seen much
with the President and members of the Cabinet the cry
would be raised again by jealous partisans about the
Mugwumps exerting an influence, etc., which might be
disagreeable to all of you; and the other, that I do not
know whether such opinions and suggestions as I have to
offer will be at all welcome or acceptable to the President,
since the occasional expression of them by letter has of
late remained not only without response but without
notice. It was principally for this reason that I asked
you to mention to him what I had written to you, or to
show him my letter. I think it is desirable that about the
relations between him and the Independents there should
be no misapprehension. While I should regret and wish
to prevent any misconstruction on his part of our attitude,
I should be equally sorry to draw any mistaken conclusions
from his.
Having been in Executive office myself I understand
perfectly what work you have to do and what difficulties
to overcome in order to make a good Administration. I
know also that fighting the thieves is one of the important
tasks — a very meritorious and in a certain sense an un
grateful one, because it makes bitter enemies while the
best things you do will sometimes never become known
and never be put to your credit. On the other hand every
lapse in this respect, however slight, is counted against
you and made prominent. For instance, the injury done
to the Administration by the Pan-Electric business is great,
while its faithful struggle against jobbery remains, in
great part at least, unknown to the multitude. In this
way great injustice is done, — but it is always so and no
body can count upon being made an exception to the rule.
I think I understand perfectly how it happened that the
opportune moment for relieving the Administration of this
444 The Writings of U886
blemish was suffered to slip away; yet, without being in
the least disposed to blame anybody, I regret it all the
same on account of its moral effect.
But the Administration of President Cleveland will be
judged according to the outcome of its reform policy.
That is the criterion he set up for himself, and it is not
likely to be superseded by any other issue. If the Ad
ministration succeeds in that, it will be voted a success;
if it fails in that, a failure. And no plea as to the difficul
ties it had to contend with will materially affect the
verdict of history, for the overcoming of those difficulties
is just the problem to be solved. Nobody appreciates
more highly than I do the honest and courageous efforts
made. It would be a pity if they failed. But what
troubles me is that the President seems to think he has to
stoop down for the purpose of lifting up his party to his
level. I have seen that sort of thing before. The danger
is that he who thus stoops down may not be able to get
quite straight up again himself.
I think it probable that President Cleveland considers
me an extremist on this question. Now, you have known
me six years in the Senate and four years in Executive
office. Have I ever appeared to you like an impracticable
visionary? Have you not rather found me on the whole
to be a man of temperate judgment and conservative
instincts? But I cannot disregard facts. I know from
early observation that the "active politicians" of both
parties, as a class, are deadly hostile to civil service reform.
I know that nobody can remain true to that cause who
makes his action dependent upon the consent of the
"active politicians." That reform can be carried out
only if they are made to understand that it will be done
whether they like it or not, and that the people will be
appealed to over their heads. Every concession encour
ages them and increases their power of resistance. The
i886] Carl Schurz 445
Executive is the great reliance of reform. The Executive
must not count upon and wait for aid from the Legislative.
The civil service law was passed when the politicians of
both parties in Congress were frightened by the growing
power of independent movements. Now they try to
undo it again. You have noticed the proviso attached
by the Committee of the House to the civil service appro
priation, the effect of which would be wholly to destroy
the competitive system. Here the responsibility of the
Executive begins again, for the Executive can, I think,
prevent that proviso from passing or from taking its
intended effect. Let me tell you what I would do if
I had the power. I would ascertain whether the Com
missioner of Pensions, whose patronage is greatly enlarged
by that proviso, had been instrumental in procuring its
adoption by the Committee. If found guilty of such inter
ference, I would instantly dismiss him. But in any event
I would inform him that, in case the proviso passed, he
would have to make room for a man who could be counted
upon to make no recommendations for appointment ex
cept after competitive examination — for competitive ex
aminations may be held in the Department without being
ordered by law, as I had them during the four years I was
Secretary of the Interior.
But there I would not stop. I would in some way make
it known to the politicians in Congress as well as to the
officeholders concerned, that, in case of the passage of the
proviso, I would have no man at the head of a Department
or of any one of the great offices subject to civil service
law, who could not be depended upon, from honest
sympathy with the principles and ends of that law and of
civil service reform generally, to select and appoint only
the highest rated and best men without regard to party
from the eligible lists submitted to them, however great
a choice those eligible lists might offer.
446 The Writings of [1886
As soon as the Executive has made it known that such
is his irrevocable and unbending resolution, the politicians
in Congress will see that all their tricks may disgrace and
weaken their party, but will do them no good in any
way, and even your pension-commissioners, and customs
collectors and postmasters, trembling in their boots, will
urge their friends in Congress to let the law alone. Now
you may call this a heroic remedy ; but I tell you when a
reform is supported only by a strong and growing senti
ment among the people but antagonized by the active
politicians of the party organizations, it cannot be car
ried through without heroic treatment, and any one who
shrinks from strong measures will be likely to fail. I re
peat, I have seen this thing before.
President Cleveland is now in the same position in
which President Grant was when Congress refused the
appropriation for the Civil Service Commission. Grant
yielded, and the public judgment was that his reform
professions were not sincere enough to stand the test of
opposition. Of course we look to President Cleveland for
much better things. Would you not think it worth while
to mention to him the plan I suggest?
But pardon this long letter. I have taxed your time
much more than I intended. Let me add only that I am
certainly grateful for the many good things which have
been effected by this Administration; that I am very far
from being sorry for what I did in 1884, and that I shall
be every moment ready to do it again — which, by the way,
is not at all unlikely to be called for — only I wish then
the good cause to be as strong as those in power can
make it.
i886] Carl Schurz 447
TO WILLIAM POTTS1
NEW YORK, June n, 1886.
I am glad to learn that you will go to Washington so
soon. As you know so well what our cause needs, I have
but little to suggest. When you see the President it will
be important, it seems to me, to make him well under
stand, that even if we could honestly overlook the mistakes
made by the Administration, the just demand of our con
stituency that we should tell the truth, would not permit
us to do so. We must tell the truth if we want to hold
our forces together and preserve our influence on public
opinion.
Secondly, the President ought to be assured that the
inquiry resolved upon by the [Civil Service Reform]
League is a movement entirely friendly to him. While
it is not to whitewash anything, it is to set things in the
right light, which no doubt will be favorable to him per
sonally. At the same time, if the inquiry discovers things
which he does not know, they will be laid before him before
the report to the League is made, thus giving him an
opportunity to right wrongs which may have escaped his
attention.
I should not wonder if the President had the impres
sion that I entertained very extreme views with regard
to this business, and desired the adoption of extreme
measures. The fact is that I deem it of the highest
importance — and it is my principal anxiety — that the
popular belief in the President's good faith be sustained,
and therefore I think his pledges with regard to the
removals, etc., should be carried out to the letter; these
[pledges] should be conspicuous in case of any violation of
them, and those exercising authority under the President
should be held to respect them with the utmost strictness.
1 Secretary of the National Civil Service Reform League.
448 The Writings of [1886
It is not only the President's honor I have at heart, but
the establishment of the fact that a public man's word
can be kept and ought to count for something — a matter
of the highest consequence to the reform cause. Further
more, my experience convinces me that the President will
not gain anything by making concessions. He will not
conciliate the spoilsmen unless he gives them all, and he
will lose in the opinion of the country in the same measure
as he tries to conciliate the spoilsmen. Every such at
tempt will only create new demands and new embarrass
ments. He will find that the politicians most pampered
with patronage are his most insidious opponents.
As to the methods followed by the Administration in
making appointments and removals, it might be well to
get the President's own views.
On the whole he ought to feel that, in us, he has [to]
do with men who are willing to fight for him again — which
they probably will have to do — and want to be enabled to
do so with effect.
TO SILAS W. BURT1
NEW YORK, June 21, 1886.
I am glad to learn that you are going to Washington to
see the President. You may have occasion to invite his
attention to a very significant fact. President Cleveland
has grown remarkably in popularity within a few weeks
past. And what has been the cause of it? Nothing else
than that his reform policy was attacked in Congress by
members of his own party, and that he was presented to
the country by the very men who assailed his course, as a
President faithful to his pledges even against the opposi
tion of his own party friends.
1 Colonel Burt was then Naval Officer of the port of New York and a
close friend of President Cleveland. He was one of the most successful
of the leaders and practical workers in civil service reform.
i886] Carl Schurz 449
As you will remember, in judging of the situation it has
always been my central idea that the President could
render no greater service to the country, to his party and
to himself than by being strictly, conspicuously, even
punctiliously, faithful to his word in spirit and letter. It
will be the greatest service to the country, because nothing
is more necessary for the elevation of our political morals
and the promotion of reform than to eradicate the
abominable popular notion that there is nothing like good
faith or a sense of honorable obligation in politics, and
that the pledges of a public man are made only for tem
porary effect. That notion he can eradicate by proving
that a public pledge can be sacred to a man in high posi
tion above any other consideration and that it can be
practically kept.
He will thus render the greatest service to his own
party, because the popular approval, which his honest
firmness cannot fail to command, will force his party up
to a more elevated sense of duty and thus infuse into it
new vitality.
And it will be the greatest service to himself, because
it will secure to him a most enviable place in American
history as a benefactor of his people not to speak of his
impregnable and commanding position as the necessary
man of his time.
The effect produced in the public mind by the attacks
in Congress upon his reform policy shows clearly, I think,
that I have not been mistaken as to the source of President
Cleveland's strength.
It is for this reason that I have always been so anxious
for a strict observance of his pledges, and that I have so
earnestly deplored every real or apparent departure from
them — such cases for instance as that of General Salomon
and those brought out in the Senate debate. It is for this
reason also that I advised a different course when the Senate
VOL. IV. — 29
450 The Writings of [1886
asked for the reasons for the suspensions made, and when
the President, as I thought, had such a splendid oppor
tunity to confirm the popular belief in his good faith
by taking the people into his confidence. It is for this
reason, too, that I am so anxious he should make a warn
ing example of some one of his subordinates who in all
sorts of ways try to circumvent the law, and thus trifle
with the President's honor. If such an example were
conspicuously made, it would prevent ever so much mis
chief, save the President a world of trouble and raise him
higher than ever before in public estimation.
In this respect the participation of officeholders in
party conventions to which the enclosed article of the
Evening Post refers, deserves especial attention. The
President has now an opportunity to nip that abuse in
the bud by disciplining some of the offenders. If he does
not, the evil will inevitably grow until it becomes unman
ageable, and we shall have the scandals of an officeholders'
party machine and of postmasters' conventions again.
The President will inevitably discover, if he has not
already done so, that the Congressmen who have been
most pampered with patronage, remain the most persis
tent and insidious enemies of the reform policy; and that
the districts in which the most appointments are made in
accordance with the recommendations of such Congress
men will be the first to build up the old-fashioned office
holders' party machine again.
It is quite evident that the President's fidelity to his
pledges will be the principal point of attack on the part
of the opposition. The movement in the Senate last
winter and the resolutions of inquiry concerning the classi
fied service recently introduced by Mr. Ingalls leave no
doubt of this. That is the point, therefore, where the
President should be strongest. He should be so unassail
able that all fair-minded men even in the opposition must
Carl Schurz 451
feel impelled to admit the fact. Of course, charges will
always be made by unscrupulous politicians; but they will
be harmless unless founded on truth. If, however, there
should be many and important charges founded on truth,
they might produce a reaction in public sentiment, all the
greater as they would create the impression that the Ad
ministration was not what it pretended to be — a matter
on which the American mind is very sensitive.
But the President can avoid all this by simply following
the true impulses of his nature and by discarding the
counsels of small political cunning. Thus he will win and
maintain a grand and unconquerable position.
TO L. Q. C. LAMAR1
NEW YORK, Sept. 28, 1886.
Your kind letter of the 24th reached me yesterday. I
thank you very much for having made General Kryzan-
owski's case ' ' special. " His physicians apprehend that
he will not survive the coming winter.
When I congratulated you upon the restoration of Dud-
denhausen to his place, as an act of justice, I believed
that his official conduct had been entirely blameless. I
understood it to be so at the time of his suspension. Had
I had any reason to think otherwise, I should never have
said a word about his case. And I wish to assure you now
that if any wrong is discovered with regard to him, I shall
be glad to hear that he is treated according to his deserts,
and call that an act of justice too.
Let me add that with regard to these things I have much
more the character of the Administration at heart than
the personal interests of the individuals concerned. It
simply so happened that the Duddenhausen and Salomon
1 Secretary of the Interior.
452 The Writings of
cases1 came to my special notice. I have nothing to ask
for but to be enabled to say that the President's pledges
have been kept. I trouble myself little about the rest.
There is probably no unofficial person more interrogated
and appealed to about the doings of the Administration
than I am. Moreover, as a member of a special committee
of the Civil Service Reform League I shall soon have to
help in making a report on the progress of the reform, the
course of the Administration as to the matter of removals
and appointments included. We can report only the
truth, and nobody can be more anxious than I am that the
truth should show the Administration in every respect
faithful to the President's word.
I think it would have been well, had the Administra
tion at the start adopted a rule to put the reasons for
every suspension or removal on record. Many suspen
sions would then not have been urged by the politicians;
many, if urged, would have been refused for a very obvious
and exceedingly strong reason; and the Administration
would in many cases have escaped the suspicion of having
made removals on mere political grounds, or of having
made the removals first and hunted up reasons for them
afterwards. But for the adoption of such a rule it is
not too late. It will always be a salutary measure in
itself.
The Administration has done many good things and
these good things are evidently the source of its moral
strength. It ought not to suffer a weak spot to exist in
its armor.
This morning I made the acquaintance of the new
collector of customs here. I do not think the President
could have made a better appointment. What we are
now looking for is to see him turn out some of the office
holders who, in defiance of his circular, have appeared as
1 Removals from office.
i886] Carl Schurz 453
managers in party caucuses and conventions. An ex
ample is very much needed. J
TO L. Q. C. LAMAR
175 WEST 58TH ST.,
NEW YORK, Oct. 9, 1886.
I thank you very much for your letter of the second.
I fully agree with you in all you say of the President. I
believe firmly in the sincerity of his professions and his
integrity of purpose. I am sure that he wishes to re
deem his pledges with the utmost strictness. I agree with
you also that the lapses which have occurred were owing
mainly to two things : the unscrupulous partisanship or in
capacity of subordinates, and to the bad advice given by
Members of Congress. But it should not be forgotten that
whatever weight be attached to this circumstance, it
does not ultimately relieve the President of his respon
sibility. As to the officers under him, he has the power
to fill their places with men who, as to the conduct of the
public service, are of the same way of thinking with him,
or, if he cannot find a sufficient number of individuals so
qualified, to keep those he has well disciplined by prac
tically convincing them that they hold office only on con
dition of a strict observance of reform principles. And
as to the bad advice given by Congressmen, the President
is under no obligation whatever to follow it, and he has
already had ample opportunity for learning that as to
1 Lamar's long answer of Oct. 2, 1886, is printed in Mayes's L. Q. C.
Lamar, 488-89. It began as follows:
"My dear Mr. Schurz: I have received your letter and it has been both
gratifying and interesting to me. I needed no assurance that you would not
desire the retention in office of any unworthy man. I have absolute con
fidence in your disinterestedness, and know no act in your life that would
give me the least misgiving on that subject. "
454 The Writings of n886
appointments and removals the recommendations of
Congressmen are throughout the least trustworthy. His
responsibility is, therefore, after all undivided, and it is
not unnatural that ultimately, notwithstanding the in
tegrity of his intentions, he should be blamed for all the
things originally owing to the bad faith of subordinates
or the bad advice of Congressmen. The public judgment,
and to a great extent the practical good done by the
Administration, will at last depend upon the energy with
which subordinates have been kept under discipline and
the interference of Congressmen with Executive duties
has been resisted.
As an illustration I send you by this mail a pamphlet
I received from Indianapolis a few days ago. It contains
a report from Lucius B. Swift to the Civil Service Reform
Association of Indiana. I know Mr. Swift well. He
was in 1884 the head and front of the Independent move
ment which did so much to give Indiana to Cleveland. He
wants no office. He is not a disappointed politician. He
is not a notoriety hunter. You meet in him simply
an unselfish and perfectly sincere man, very much in
earnest.
You will admit, when you have read his report, that
the picture he draws is a very sad one, and I must say that
what I know of Mr. Swift's character and conscientious
ness induces me to believe in its substantial correctness.
It will, I have no doubt, be generally accepted as true.
Now, that in consequence of the bad faith or incapacity
of subordinates, or of bad advice given by Congressmen,
such a state of things should have grown up, may be
explained in perfect consistency with the President's
sincere intentions. But that consistency would become
questionable if such a state of things were permitted to
continue so after having once been revealed. And it is
difficult to see how the trouble in Indiana can be remedied
i886i Carl Schurz 455
without a resort to pretty heroic measures. They will be
unavoidable sometime, and they will have to be the more
heroic, the longer they are delayed.
As I told you, I belong to a committee appointed by the
National Civil Service Reform League to make a report
upon the general condition of things. We have a local
report from Maryland before us which is no more favor
able than that from Indiana, and also one on the Indian
service by Mr. Welsh. If I remember rightly, you said to
me that some of the civil service reformers at Baltimore
who had criticized the Maryland appointments were
themselves prejudiced and perhaps not entirely unselfish
partisans. I am not sufficiently acquainted with all of
them ; but several of them, and those the most pronounced,
I know well, and I firmly believe them to be entirely
disinterested and earnest friends of good government.
And because I know them as such, I regret more keenly
than I can express to see growing up among them sus
picions as to the President's motives — suspicions of the
groundlessness of which I am convinced, but have not
been able to persuade them in consequence of what they
have observed in their own State.
I have suggested to my colleagues on the National
League committee that before making a general report,
some of them should go to Washington and have a talk
with the President and some Department chiefs about
the facts before us. We may have discovered some things
which are new to the authorities at Washington, and they
may present views calculated to put things into a new
light. What do you think of this plan?
One suggestion permit me to submit to you now. You
have trouble about the removal and appointment of
clerks at Indian agencies. The best thing to be done, in
my opinion, would be to make clerks of the same grade of
pay in the Indian Office at Washington and at the Indian
456 The Writings of
agencies interchangeable. This would bring the agency
clerks under the civil service law, and in the course of time,
when a number of clerks have been inter-exchanged, give
the agencies the benefit of approved business methods and
the Indian Office the benefit of the experience gathered by
clerks at the agencies. To effect this, legislation would be
necessary; but a recommendation in your report followed
up with some further pressure would be likely to bring it,
and produce at once a very good effect by opening a new
prospect of reform.
While I am writing I receive a letter from St. Louis
informing me that the new collector of customs there, Mr.
Lancaster, is doing the same things which are disgracing
the Indianapolis post-office, especially worrying resigna
tions out of good clerks whom he can find no reason for
removing. There is much sensitiveness in Missouri
about the efforts made to replace the few Union soldiers
still in the Federal service there, with Confederates.
There are, as I am informed, two left in the marine office
of the customhouse, who are to be got rid of now. One
of them, Captain Schuster, through a friend, asks me
whether I think him justified in declining to resign if
requested to do so without any reason. My answer will
be in the affirmative. I am not acquainted at present
with any of the ruling spirits in the Treasury, or I should
directly bring the matter to their attention. Will you,
perhaps, be kind enough to mention the subject to them
as soon as possible? They may possibly prevent a scan
dal there. How magnificently did the President correct
the mistake made by the appointment of Hedden! That
is the kind of medicine needed.
Now, my dear Mr. Lamar, you know where I live and
where, whenever you visit this neighborhood, you will
always be heartily welcome. Let me hope to see you soon
again.
i886] Carl Schurz 457
TO L. Q. C. LAMAR
NEW YORK, Oct. 14, 1886.
Permit me to add a postscript to my last communica
tion. I have just received a letter from St. Louis inform
ing me that Mr. Lancaster, the collector of customs, was
asked whether there was anything in Captain Schuster's
official conduct that made his resignation or removal
desirable, and that Mr. Lancaster answered: "Nothing of
the kind. I was pleased with him and have nothing to
say against him. But political pressure forces me to
discharge him at once if he refuses to hand in his resigna
tion. " This information comes from a trustworthy man.
There is, as you see, a case very similar to that of the
Indianapolis post-office preparing itself at St. Louis.
I think all the heads of such offices in the country ought
to be directed by Executive order, whenever they recom
mend or before they make a removal, to report to the
respective Department at Washington reasons for it,
and be held strictly responsible for the correctness of their
statements. The collector of customs here, Mr. Magone,
has adopted that rule, as I understand, without being
ordered to do so.
TO WINSLOW WARREN
NEW YORK, Oct. 16, 1886.
There is one feature of your State campaign which,
perhaps, has not received all the attention it demands, and
it is just that feature which makes your election one of
general interest. One of the most significant figures in
the public life of our day is the millionaire in politics. His
appearance is by no means of evil under all circumstances.
When men of wealth devote their leisure and opportuni
ties to the study of public questions, endeavor to qualify
458 The Writings of [1886
themselves for the discharge of public trust and then seek
official position for the purpose of employing their abili
ties for the public benefit, they may render very great
service and become a blessing to the community. The
country has reason to congratulate itself upon the fact
that so many young men of means and leisure have of
late shown a disposition to give their abilities and time to
public matters in the right spirit.
But we find in politics millionaires of another class who
are a curse. I mean the rich men who without marked
qualifications for important position, and without having
earned promotion by useful and distinguished public
service, seek high office merely on the strength of their
money, either to use its power for their own advantage, or
to add the conspicuous honors of high political station to
their wealth. The very appearance on the field of politics
of millionaires whose money is their only, or at least
their principal, title to consideration is an element of
corruption, for it means that in some way somebody or
something is to be bought. It means the employment of
the millionaire's money to procure his election to the place
he covets, either through the direct bribery of individuals,
or through the bribery of a political organization with
campaign funds. It cannot mean anything else. In
either form it is corruption; in the latter form corruption
especially insidious and demoralizing because it is usually
called by a different name.
The consequences of the invasion of public life by
millionaires of this class are already disclosing themselves.
One seat after another in the Senate of the United States
is falling into their hands. In some cases the purchase is
a matter of notoriety. I know of no recent occurrence
more alarming than the refusal of the Senate to investigate
the charges of corruption made by respectable parties
with regard to the election of a millionaire Senator from
Carl Schurz 459
Ohio. I have read the charges as well as the evidence
upon which they are based; also the arguments made in
the Senate against investigating them; and I do not hesi
tate to say that if charges of corruption in Senatorial
elections based upon evidence creating so strong a pre
sumption are thrown aside by the Senate as not entitled
to an investigation, upon reasoning so flimsy, there will
be, as far as the action of the Senate itself is concerned,
nothing to prevent every seat in that body from being
acquired by some millionaire for himself or his attorney,
in the way of downright purchase very thinly disguised.
I candidly ask you, can you imagine anything more cal
culated to undermine the moral standing and authority
not only of the Senate, but of the whole Government, aye,
the stability of our institutions generally, than the refusal
of the highest legislative body in the Republic to investi
gate strongly supported charges concerning the purchase
of seats in it by rich men?
The nomination of men whose only, or whose principal,
strength consists in the money they have, to State gover
norships, which this year, beginning with Maine, has
become strikingly frequent, is of the same character. It
means corruption in some way. To express it in the
mildest language, it means that not uncommon ability,
not superior qualifications, not distinguished service on
the part of the candidate, but the possession of large
funds by him is in some way depended upon as the de
cisive influence to determine the action of the party and of
the voting body. This, too, looks to purchase in some form.
Among the millionaires wishing to be governors your
Republican candidate, Mr. Ames, is probably the most
conspicuous. However estimable a gentleman he may be
in his way, his qualifications for the high station he covets
are known to be such that the proposition to make him
governor of Massachusetts would have been received with
460 The Writings of
derision, were he not a millionaire. His case is therefore
in point.
It is high time, as [it] seems to me, that the American
people, and especially those who have the peace and good
order of society at heart, should give some attention to
this matter. We are living in times in which the arraign
ing of the rich and the poor against one another is es
pecially mischievous. It ought by all means to be avoided ;
it ought certainly not to be provoked. There is much
alarm at the appearance of anarchism, of revolutionary
theories and of all sorts of tendencies subversive of social
order. What do you think will be the effect, if you give
the poor to understand that the highest political powers,
the power to make laws and the power to execute them, are
virtually for sale, and that the highest offices are to be no
longer for the able and trustworthy and meritorious who
deserve them, but for the rich who can pay for them?
Massachusetts has had the reputation of maintaining a
rather high standard of ability and character as to her
principal public dignitaries. There have been lapses in
her record, no doubt, but she has never, so far, succumbed
to the prestige and the demoralizing influence of the money
bag. It would be a pity, and, under existing circum
stances, a disaster peculiarly deplorable, if she should do
so now. Our Independent friends may be congratulated
upon the unanimity and promptness with which they
rallied to prevent such a misfortune. The straightforward
and vigorous utterances of Mr. Andrew, the candidate
they support, upon the subject of the use of money in
elections, are especially gratifying. His success would
not only do honor to Massachusetts, but, as an emphatic
rebuke to the pretensions of millionairedom in politics,
produce a very wholesome effect upon political life through
out the country at a time when such an effect is much
needed.
i886] Carl Schurz 461
TO ABRAM S. HEWITT1
175 W. 58TH ST., Oct. 26, 1886.
You are aware, I presume, that I am to speak at a
meeting of Germans next Friday evening in behalf of
your candidacy. A good many of my acquaintances are
hesitating as to whether to vote for you or for Mr. Roose
velt. As you no doubt know, the argument used against
you with considerable effect is that, although the nomina
tion was thrust upon you, yet, in order to obtain the
energetic support of Tammany Hall and of the County
Democracy, you have been obliged to give pledges to
their leaders, or at least to come with them to some sort
of an understanding as to appointments to office.
Whenever this objection to you was advanced in my
presence, I answered what I believe to be true: that Mr.
Hewitt has no understanding, either expressed or implied,
with Tammany Hall, or the County Democracy, or any
other political organization or set of politicians, as to
appointments to office to be made, or patronage to be
distributed, in the event of his being elected mayor; that,
on the contrary, he will make his appointments and
conduct his administration and carry on the work of
reform in the affairs of the city with a sole view to the
promotion of the public good, and not in any partisan
or factional interest.
This I have constantly expressed as my honest belief;
but the correctness of that belief having been challenged,
I should be glad to be able to say that I know it from the
best authority. And as I regard you as the best authority
I address myself to you personally with the request that
you tell me whether my belief is correct.
It is not my purpose to elicit from you, in reply to this,
a letter for publication. I only wish to be enabled to
1 Then Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City.
462 The Writings of [1886
speak with a positiveness calculated to produce a greater
effect than a mere expression of confidence would have.
FROM ABRAM S. HEWITT
NEW YORK, Oct. 27, 1886.
I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the
26th inst. In reply I can only repeat . . . that I was nomi
nated for mayor without my knowledge, that I was not asked
to give any pledge of any kind whatever, by Tammany Hall,
or the County Democracy, or by anybody else, and that I
have made no other pledge and shall make no other as to the
administration of the office, except that I will discharge its
duties to the best of my ability, without fear or favor and in
the interests of the whole people and not for the benefit of
any political party. I do not know how I can make this
declaration any stronger, but I would do so if I could. While
you only ask a reply for your own personal use, you are at
liberty to read or publish the [this] letter in any way you see
fit.
TO JOHN T. MORSE, JR.
NEW YORK, Nov. 19, 1886.
I am glad to know that you approve of the closing
chapter [of Henry Clay} as it stands. I am especially
anxious that there should be no mistakes as to facts and
dates in the book. I have, indeed, been careful to verify
everything — at least I think I have. But I may have,
here and there, depended too much upon my memory,
and thus some little errors may have slipped in. I should
be especially obliged to you for advising me if, in reading
the proof, anything of a doubtful nature should occur to
you.
i886] Carl Schurz 463
TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND
NEW YORK, Dec. 15, 1886.
My dear Mr. President: There are some things which
should be said to you now, and as I have been asked to
do it, I crave your indulgence for a few minutes.
It is your endeavor, I apprehend, to serve the cause of
reform consistently with what you conceive to be the
interest of your party. Under such circumstances a
correct view of the relation between that cause and party
interest is of high importance. In this respect it should
be observed that the political situation has of late under
gone a significant change. It may be doubted whether
the National Labor party now organizing will live long.
But it seems very probable that it will appear with some
strength in the election of 1888. Had a Labor candidate
in 1884 received in the whole State as many votes as
Henry George received last month in this city, you would
have lost New York by at least 20,000. It is by no means
unlikely that two years hence a Labor candidate will
receive at least something like the George vote, in the
State. Much less would suffice to defeat the Democrats
on the basis of the figures of 1884, considering that,
according to trustworthy estimates, fully three-fourths
of the Labor vote is drawn from the Democratic ranks.
In New Jersey and Connecticut the proportion would
probably be about the same.
The Democrats will, therefore, be doomed to defeat,
unless votes enough to cover the deficiency be won over
from the Republicans.
The Democratic party has, indeed, gained one important
point. The superstition that a Democratic President
will absolutely ruin the country, is effectually dispelled;
that is to say, when a Democratic nomination especially
commends itself to favor, or a Republican nomination
464 The Writings of [1886
repels public confidence, the old vague fear will no longer
stand in the way of Democratic success.
But aside from that, the Democratic party, as a party,
has not grown in the popular confidence since 1884. It
has rather lost ground. It has, as represented in Congress,
shown a singular incapacity in dealing with public prob
lems, and the demonstrative efforts of its politicians to
defeat a consistent reform policy have offered a somewhat
repulsive spectacle generally. It might make some local
gains by a statesmanlike treatment of the tariff question ;
but there is scarcely any hope of that, especially with its
diminished majority in the next Congress. The Demo
cratic party, as such, will therefore not be able to draw
the necessary number of votes from the Republicans.
It has only one chance of salvation, and that is by
renominating you. I do not know, and do not inquire,
whether you desire to be nominated or not. I only mean
to say that, whatever your personal wishes may be, a
failure to renominate you would be understood as a
distinct rebuke by your party of the attempted reform
policy with which your name is identified, and that then
any Republican candidate will easily defeat his Democratic
competitor.
But your renomination will save the Democratic party
only if your name remains strong enough to draw a large
number of Republican votes — not only the old Independ
ent force, but much more; and you will be renominated
only if the Democratic politicians know that you can
draw them and that nobody else can. You were nomi
nated in 1884 not on account of the strength you had
within your party, but on account of that strength which
you were believed to possess outside of it. A renomina
tion in 1888 will come to you only if, for the same reason,
you are looked upon as a necessity — for you have already
displeased the spoils politicians in your party, so much so
Carl Schurz 465
that even a complete surrender to them would hardly
make them trust and love you. The less outside strength
you command, the less will you appear necessary to your
party, and the less will be the probability of your renomi-
nation. The Democratic politicians who sneer most at
the Mugwumps will be the first to throw you overboard
as soon as they see that the Mugwumps are no longer
in force on your side.
It is scarcely necessary to say that your strength out
side of your party depends entirely upon the confidence
inspired by the course of your Administration. In this
respect it has become a duty of friendship to speak without
reserve. Until recently a general trust in the sincerity of
your professions sought for what appeared to be your mis
takes and inconsistencies the most favorable explanations.
The worst things laid to your charge were construed
as mere errors of judgment, and perhaps occasionally
a certain stubbornness of temper in sticking to an error
once committed. But the fact should not be concealed
from you, that this confiding belief has been seriously
shaken by your action in the Benton-Stone case. x This
was not a mere mistake as to the character or qualification
of a person, or an error owing to misinformation. This
was a retreat from a position of principle — a " back- down"
apparently for partisan reasons or under partisan dictation.
The letters with which that retreat was sought to be
covered made the matter appear only worse, and the
subsequent revelation of the fact that the Democrat
Benton had really attacked your Administration while
the Republican Stone had cautiously abstained from do
ing so, has poured over all professions of principle and
1 Benton was a Democratic and Stone a Republican U. S. district
attorney who had respectively made campaign speeches. Both were
dismissed for offensive partisanship, but Benton was reinstated. See
43 N. Y. Nation, 430, 450.
VOL. iv. — 30
466 The Writings of
impartiality in the proceeding a flood of ridicule, which is
even more hurtful than serious criticism.
The evil consequences of that act go far beyond the
abandonment of that one position. It was like a flash
of lightning showing many other things in a new aspect.
It gave a new and a strange significance to the fact that
the "offensive partisan" and "pernicious activity"
business, however originally intended, had, in point of
practical application, served only to cloak the removal
of Republican officeholders, while Democratic officeholders
were permitted to do partisan work very much as they
pleased. It brought to mind the other fact, that while
in Republican States many good things were done, in
States which had Democratic Senators or other strong
and exacting Democratic leaders, the spoils system
flourished again as of old. It severely staggered the old
belief that where no explanation was given of a question
able act, a creditable explanation must at least be possible.
In one word, this one step has greatly diminished the num
ber of those who were always confident that whatever you
did, if not always well done, was at least always well meant.
There is a condition of public confidence under which
all a man does is construed favorably, and there is another
under which all is construed unfavorably. You have had
all the advantages of the first. If I am not mistaken,
you are now standing on the dividing line between the two.
If you should drift into the second, other weak points
of your Administration, which so far have plagued you
comparatively little, would then rise to uncomfortable
importance, in a manner sometimes quite unjust to you.
Such is the Pan-Electric affair, and the retention of the
Attorney- General [Garland] in the Cabinet, the generous
motives for which I perfectly appreciate.1 Such is the
1 Attorney-General Garland held stock in the Pan-Electric Co., which
owned a patent of which the Bell telephone was alleged to be an infringe-
i886] Carl Schurz 467
neglect of business in the Navy Department, which has
for a long time been the current talk of the service and
cannot fail finally to break out in the newspapers, aside
from the ostentatious — to use a mild term — display of
wealth by the Secretary [Wm. C. Whitney], especially
unfortunate at a time when more than ever the highest
official circles should set an example in preserving the old
republican simplicity of social life in Washington against
the invasion of vulgar millionairedom ; and especially
offensive and imprudent while the contrasts between the
extremes of wealth and poverty are more than ever
the subject of public attention. Such is the speech of the
Postmaster-General as reported, approving the partisan
cry that the decapitating processs does not go fast enough,
together with the fact that the number of unfortunate
changes in country post-offices, which to the rural mind
represent the character of the Administration, has been
particularly great. Such are many things which have
so far been excused when they could not be explained or
justified, and which injured you comparatively little while
the presumption was in your favor; but which will be
calculated to harm you seriously as soon as the presump
tion becomes doubtful or turns against you.
As the case stands to-day I should say that, if the
election were to take place to-morrow, and if you were
the candidate on one and Elaine on the other side, you
would receive the whole Independent vote, and perhaps
ment. If this claim were sustained, the value of the Pan-Electric stock
would be very great. Mr. Garland permitted the Solicitor-General to
institute proceedings impugning the validity of the Bell patent. The
Republicans charged Mr. Garland with an attempt to enrich himself
by using the resources of his Department for personal ends; though
the decision of the case rested, of course, with the Court and not with
Mr. Garland or his Solicitor-General. A Congressional committee after
wards exonerated these gentlemen. — Peck, Twenty Years of the Republic,
p. 55, n. See also E. Benj. Andrews, 2 Hist, of the Last Quarter- Century,
108, 109.
468 The Writings of [1886
some Republican votes which were cast for Elaine in 1884;
whether enough of the latter to cover the deficiency
caused by the Labor movement, is questionable. But if
the Republicans nominated, instead of Elaine, some fair
man, you would have only a part of the Independent
vote — consisting of the most decided ant i- tariff men.
In the first case, Elaine being now the weakest man the
Republicans have, your success would perhaps be barely
possible; in the latter case, your defeat might be looked
upon as certain, and I venture to say that while Elaine's
nomination would seem inevitable, if the Convention were
held to-morrow, the number of Republicans who are
afraid of it is constantly growing and not at all unlikely
to control the Convention in 1888.
It being clear that you can save your party only by
enabling it to draw a large number of votes from its
opponents; and that this can be done only by a strong
reform policy commanding general confidence, it seems
no exaggeration to say that your action in the Ben ton-
Stone case is the worst blow the Democratic party has
received since 1884. ^ ^as been received with jubilant
shouts by your worst enemies, such as the Sun, who wish
not only to defeat but to disgrace you. It has encouraged
the spoilsmen in your party as they have scarcely ever
been encouraged before, for it has made them confident
that they can subdue the strongest President if they only
try hard enough. And surely they will try more than
they ever did. Neither will they be deterred by what you
say about reform, in your message. On the contrary,
they find there another encouragement. They find the
advanced positions tacitly abandoned, and the cause of
administrative reform driven back into the last line of
defense within the narrow entrenchment of the civil
service law, — and even that entrenchment in spots by no
means impregnable. They see no longer an advancing,
i886] Carl Schurz 469
but a retreating cause; and let us not forget that while
a strong, aggressive movement commands esteem and
acquiescence, a halting, retreating one invites contempt
and attack.
The spoilsmen see more. They understand perfectly
who those are whom you dismiss as "impracticable
friends" and men of "misguided zeal." They remember
well that this is the same taunt those men had to hear
from the Republican side, when they threw their political
fortunes to the winds, repudiated Elaine, turned their
backs upon their party and supported you who promised
to be the champion of their common principles. And
the spoilsmen eagerly believe that the spirit which inspires
that taunt now, cannot be very different from that which
inspired it on the other side two years ago. In this new
departure they will see a fresh incitement to redouble
their energies. Is there any hope that the power of
resistance will grow in proportion to the increased vigor
of the assault?
Nothing can be more certain than this. You cannot
sacrifice the reform cause to your party without at the
same time sacrificing your party to the worst element in
it. This surely you do not mean to do. But I warned
you more than once that your principal danger was to
sit down between two chairs. I am afraid you are vir
tually there now. Only a heroic policy can extricate you
from that situation. But it must be adopted soon, for
it grows more difficult every day; the time is not far off
when even the most heroic policy may no longer suffice
to save your party, although it may be all the more
necessary to save your honor.
Do not believe that I fail to appreciate the many good
things you have done. Nobody values them more highly.
Nobody rejoiced more than I at the enthusiastic reception
you had at Cambridge a few weeks ago, and nobody can
470 The Writings of [1887
be more grieved than I, to think that it would hardly
be so enthusiastic now, and that there your popularity
culminated to descend thenceforth. Neither should you
believe that anything I have said was caused by irritation
at the expressions contained in your message. In my
long public life I have met with so many similar things
that they have ceased to vex and even to surprise me.
I will admit, however, that I am sorry for the younger
Independents who followed your standard, and to whom
this experience is new. At any rate, permit me to remind
you that no great reform ever succeeded without a high
degree of impracticability among its champions; that,
not to any political cunning, to your own impracticability
you owe all the prestige and power you have; and that
you need all of it now more than ever to save your cause,
your party and your own standing in the confidence of
the people.
It is due to you, as well as to myself, to say that the
sentiments here expressed are by no means my own alone.
I have had earnest consultations with friends well known
to you, both Democrats and Independents, who all
believe that you have reached a very critical point in
your career, some of them going in their apprehensions
even much farther than I do, and requested me to write
to you. To do so, I considered a duty, but I assure you
it was not a welcome task. J
Sincerely yours.
FROM CHARLES R. CODMAN
57 MARLBORO' ST.,
BOSTON, Jan. 31, 1887.
I arrived here on Saturday having pushed through from
Washington. I had but one interview with the President which
lasted two hours and which he showed no impatience to bring
1 See the letter of Feb. 3, 1887, to Col. Codman.
1887] Carl Schurz 471
to an end. I laid before him my statement which was sub
stantially to this effect: " Dissatisfaction exists among our
friends who feel that at the rate at which removals are being
made there will scarcely be any Republican left in office at
the expiration of Mr. Cleveland's term, and we shall have a
condition of things no better than under previous Administra
tions. The ' clean sweep ' would be complete though it would
be gradually accomplished." I also said that there was much
criticism of the Maryland and Indiana appointments and,
generally, I said explicitly what I told you I should say.
The President heard me with the greatest patience and
attention, and when I had done he said in substance that
our friends ought to be quite sure that they understand
exactly what his pledges were, and that to his knowledge he
had violated none. All that he had said in his letter to
Curtis (and it was more than he need to have said) was that
officials, not in the classified service, who were competent,
and not offensive partisans, — might expect to retain their
places and would not be turned out to reward party workers.
"He had never said that they might expect reappointment at
the end of their terms of office. He claimed that all the
removals that had been made were, so far as he had been able
to control them, for what were believed to be good reasons.
Not that mistakes had not been made, not that instances
could not be found where good officials had been removed and
bad ones put in their places, not that some of his own appoin
tees had not disregarded the principles upon which he himself
acted." — All this was said in answer to the suggestion of
unfaithfulness to his pledges. He said, besides, that he had
already been considering whether a farther step in advance
could not soon be taken. He stated that the pressure upon
him to make removals merely to give places to Democrats
was at an end. So much at least had been gained. Whether
it were best to make an announcement, that — now that the
offices were reasonably fairly divided between the parties —
appointments in the Post-Office Department, at least, should
be made wholly from considerations of fitness without regard
to politics, was something he was considering.
472 The Writings of [1887
To my suggestion that at least some conspicuous reappoint-
ments might be made of Republican postmasters he seemed
to incline favorably, and when I said that these appointments
might be made to advantage outside of Massachusetts, he
replied "that that too should be considered." We then had
a general conversation in which among other things the
President said that he had often refused to make appoint
ments that Senator Gorman desired, telling him plainly that
it could not be done. He claimed that the collector and
district attorney at Baltimore were good appointments and
that Rasin the Naval Officer (whatever his antecedents) did his
work well. Of Indiana he spoke as if he were disgusted and
discouraged at the behavior of his party friends in that State.
He recognized Mr. Swift's honesty of intention and said
nothing disparaging about him. And then he said, when we
got onto the inter-state commerce bill and other matters,
"I can't grasp this whole thing," meaning the whole range of
Presidential responsibility — as I understood him. I have
given you the points of the conversation as I recall them. Of
course I have omitted many things, such as some local
matters in Massachusetts. The President mentioned your
letters and said that they sometimes irritated him, though he
acknowledged your entire disinterestedness. The impression
made upon me was that he thought you did not allow for the
difficulties of his position in the immense variety of questions
and subjects to which he is obliged to give attention.
Let me sum up my general impression : — If I saw the Presi
dent oftener I should have an opportunity to judge better;
and, even as far as it goes, I may be quite wrong in my ob
servation. With my present light, it appears to me that the
President inclines too much to look at the details of his
functions and imagines that by working these out correctly
he will be best able to achieve results. It is in a certain sense
with him, "Take care of the pence and the pounds will take
care of themselves." He has not the scientific way of going
to work, of laying down his propositions and then carrying
them out in a general way. He wants to make a good ap
pointment in every case and thinks less perhaps of the prin-
1887] Carl Schurz 473
ciples upon which all appointments should be made. I say
that he thinks less of these; I am far from saying that he
does not regard them at all. He has certainly an idea of
educating the leaders of his party and he believes that en
couraging progress has been made in this direction.
I am of opinion that President Cleveland has shown much
courage in his power of resistance, and rather less in his power
of advance, but my conclusion is, that in spite of appearances
and inconsistencies, he is a man of a good and honest purpose.
I think he ought to be supported cordially, that we should
not irritate or discourage him, but that nevertheless we should
kindly and clearly point out what we think should be done.
As I was about to leave him he said, "And now what are
you going to say to your friends?" I replied, as well as I can
recall it : " I am going to tell them that you say that you never
promised to reappoint capable Republicans when their terms
expired, that you claim that progress has been made, that you
expect to make still more and that you are considering what
the next step shall be." To this he made no objection.
And then I said to him, almost the last thing, " I don't want
you to think hardly of Carl Schurz, who is really your friend."
"Yes," said he with perfect good nature, "but where am I to
find three or four hours to answer his letter?"
Our whole intercourse in this interview was frank and cordial.
The President talked a good deal. I don't think his tone was
despondent, although some of the things I have described him
as saying may seem to indicate it. I can only say that I
left him, as I always do, with an increased regard for him. He
has his limitations, of course, like the rest of us. He certainly
has not been trained to be and perhaps (though I am not so
sure of that) cannot be a logical and constructive statesman,
but he is a faithful public servant, honest and manly and
simple and brave, and growing every day in experience and
in comprehension of the situation. I am for sustaining him,
and in the interests of good government I would not be too
rigid with him.
The American people, too, have their limitations and
peculiarities, one of which is that they do a great many things
474 The Writings of [1887
without any particular system. It is the French rather than
the Anglo-Saxons that want mathematically perfect constitu
tions and who are disappointed when they don't work to
perfection.
But our people like a man, and when they get a notion that
a President means to do right on the whole, notwithstanding
many errors and shortcomings, and that in so doing he dis
turbs the "little games " of the machine-men, even if some very
good people find fault with him and do so justly, the average
people are apt to do what I must think is demonstrably
unreasonable, but which is yet profoundly characteristic of
our people, and that is to stand by him, right or wrong.
I hope, therefore, that our report will deal very gently with
Mr. Cleveland, even more so than does the original draft,
and I intend to look at it again with the view of suggesting
modifications in the direction I suggest.
TO CHARLES R. CODMAN
NEW YORK, Feb. 3, 1887.
I thank you for your letter of January 3ist as well as
the postscript received yesterday. On the whole I must
confess that your account of your interview with the
President makes upon me a melancholy impression. His
mind seems to be controlled by irritation at his critics
rather than by an intelligent endeavor to disarm their
criticism. That irritation threatens to become somewhat
morbid. Last night I saw a letter he had addressed a
day or two ago to one of his friends here, in which he
expressed the opinion that the Independents were working
for the same object as the extreme spoilsmen, such as
Dana and others, to ruin him.
The explanations he gave you do not explain anything.
It certainly does not justify his submission to Gorman's
influence when he says that he might have done worse
1887] Carl Schurz 475
and submitted still more. It does not explain his un
justified removals and bad appointments when he says
that he never pledged himself to reappoint Republi
cans — which pledge I think nobody ever accused him of
making.
When he says that his pledge with regard to removals
has been kept, he stands probably alone in saying so.
I shall certainly give him credit for believing himself
what he says; but in that case he indulges in a delusion
decidedly dangerous not only to his success but to his
good name. Moreover, he seems to overlook that it is
of vastly more importance, practically, what others think
of his fidelity to his pledges, than what he thinks of it
himself.
His belief that Benton did not make the speeches
imputed to him, shows only how easily he permits himself
to be deceived by politicians who tell him what he likes
to believe.
All this gives me little hope as to the forward steps he
is "considering." A Democratic friend of mine is going
to Washington to-day to urge an extension of the civil
service rules. I pray he may succeed, in the first place
for the sake of reform itself, and then because something
is absolutely needed to make the weak position into
which the President has put himself, less conspicuous.
As to my personal relations with the President, I
undertook the ungrateful role of the friend who utters
disagreeable truths, because I thought nobody else would
do so while it was most necessary. It was an act of self-
sacrifice. If for this he "thinks hardly" of me, I am
sorry, but not on my own account. I shall always be
ready to explain how what I said was meant, but not
to apologize for it. When Mr. Cleveland complains of
my letters to others instead of answering them, he does
not act wisely. If he has done things bad in appearance,
476 The Writings of [1887
and a friend calls his attention to that fact, and he neglects
giving explanations to put them in a better light, he must
not blame that friend for thinking that those things are
as bad as they appear. Lincoln knew better how to
treat such differences of opinion between himself and his
friends. What shall I say of Mr. Cleveland's plea that he
could not "find three or four hours to answer my letters"?
Might I not say that he could possibly find those three
or four hours where I found three or four months to
advocate his election? Seriously speaking, I have been
in official position and overburdened with work myself,
but I always could find time to answer letters which I
really wished to answer.
I assure you, I do not mean to urge a question of
courtesy. I simply regret that the President does not
do the right things to hold those together who ought to
cooperate for common objects. I regret this, because I
sincerely wish him well.
Now, as to our report, I think all we have to do is to
speak the truth — first because it is the truth, and then
because as soon as we Independents do anything to shake
the popular belief that we have the courage and can be
depended upon to speak the truth under all circumstances,
all our moral spirit, all our influence upon public opinion,
all our power for good, will be gone. Of course, I do
not wish to hurt the President unnecessarily and would
therefore speak the truth unfavorable to him as mildly
as possible, but it must be the truth.
What you say of the American people doing things
without system, while French doctrinaires will insist
upon perfection or nothing, is no doubt true. But I do
not think those who insist that a President's pledges and
orders must mean something, should therefore be classed
with the French doctrinaires.
It is evidently desirable that we should have a confer-
Carl Schurz 477
ence before the report is made, and I hope we may have
it soon.
FROM THOMAS F. BAYARD
WASHINGTON, April n, 1887.
My dear General: How are you getting on? I hope this
bright Easter sun is cheering you, and healing your wound. *
Mr. Straus has just gone to Turkey, and it pleased me to
know he had you among his friends. He impressed me very
favorably and I believe he will do good service at Constanti
nople. I hope next year a more respectable pay will be
attached to the place.
By this mail I send you an advance copy of the correspond
ence of this Department for 1886, and will ask you to read
under the head of Brazil an extraordinary case in which your
friend Blaine sought to induce closer commercial relations
with Brazil by demanding more than three times the amount
of the Alabama award for one of Mr. Elkins's clients!
My dear Schurz, if you never performed any other service
for our countrymen than the part you played in preventing
Blaine from becoming Chief Magistrate, you deserve a statue.
Get well rapidly and believe me, sincerely yours.
P. S. I send you a very sensible paper on a "burning
question."
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
175 W. 58TH ST., NEW YORK.
April 28, 1887.
Let me thank you for your very kind letter of the I2th
[nth] inst. It has given me a great deal of pleasure.
Answering your inquiry concerning my condition I am
glad to say that I got out of bed week before last, that
I am walking on crutches, as yet very cautiously, that I
1 Mr. Schurz had recently slipped and fallen on the pavement, fracturing
a hip-bone.
478 The Writings of [1887
am gaining a little every day and that my physicians
promise a complete cure. It will, however, be a good
while yet before I shall be able to walk with any freedom.
But my general health is unimpaired and I am in good
spirits.
The Brazilian correspondence, which you were good
enough to send me, I have read with much interest. Yes,
Blaine appears there, in all his beautiful suggestiveness.
Those who contributed to his defeat may indeed rest in
the consciousness of having done their country a good
turn. I do not know whether, as you say, I deserve a
statue for my part in that business; but if I have never
anything else for it than the insidious persecution which
has since followed me from that quarter and the abuse I
have received from both sides, I shall be satisfied with my
lot, especially since it looks as if he were disposed of
forever as a Presidential candidate, and then also as a
power in politics. Of course, he will fight to the last,
and I do not look upon his discomfiture as certain. But
it grows more probable every day. If it is accomplished,
we shall not see another notoriously corrupt man nomi
nated for the Presidency in our day. It will clear the
political atmosphere wonderfully, and I shall, after having
taken an active part in eight Presidential campaigns,
claim my discharge, to devote my leisure to my favorite
literary work.
The paper about the land and labor party which you
sent me is full of good sense. I think the labor organiza
tions as they now are, at least the Knights of Labor, will
break down before long, to rise up in a better form. But
it is very probable that there will be a labor candidate
for the Presidency in 1888, and that he will draw the
principal part of his strength from the Democratic ranks,
at least in the critical States, New York, Connecticut
and New Jersey. No coquetting with "Labor" as Gov-
i887] Carl Schurz 479
ernor Hill does it, will prevent that; it will rather tend
to discredit those resorting to it with the conservative
element. The Democrats will, therefore, in order to fill
the gap caused by the labor defection, have to draw upon
the sincere friends of reform among the Republicans and
the Independents. And that can be done only by a
strong reform policy.
I think you did a good thing in appointing Straus.
He is an excellent man and will, I trust, do good service.
You will have noticed that the appointment was received
with uniform favor by the press. Last Sunday I had a
call from John Sherman and his brother the General.
Do you think John is making much headway as an
aspirant to the nomination?
Do you ever visit New York, and when you do, will
you ever be able to find half an hour to cheer this sufferer
with your kind countenance? You will probably find
me at home for a good while yet.
FROM EX-PRESIDENT HAYES
SPIEGEL GROVE, July 2, 1887.
My dear General : This hot morning I give a few minutes to
the duty and pleasure of telling you how much I am delighted
with your Henry Clay. Wm. Henry Smith had written me
that it was the best of the series and very excellent. Critical
notices all point the same way. I knew you were not likely
to be unjust. But owing to your aversion to Hero Worship
I feared you would not see as others do the wonderful com
bination of attractive qualities possessed by Clay. He was
by nature sound and an adherent of the best. This with his
prodigious magnetism, grace and eloquence made him a
unique character. You have satisfied the demand of his
admirers, and still kept faith with historical accuracy and
justice. It is well done, exceedingly.
Now a word more personal, almost impertinent. You
480 The Writings of 11887
write so easily and rapidly, it will not interfere with your
necessary work. Do write a full autobiography. You need
not publish. Leave that to the young folks. How great
the curiosity to know your method of mastering our language.
How much instruction you could give. Then you are an
enigma in a certain sense. Explain yourself. You can write
the most readable sketch of the sort to be found in our language.
Sincerely,
R. B. HAYES.
FROM EX-PRESIDENT HAYES
FREMONT, O., July 9, 1887.
My dear General: I am specially rejoiced that you have
begun the autobiography. Anything you write is quite sure
to be of interest and value. But this sketch — don't make it
too short — will be, I am sure, of the greatest interest.
You ask for the exact point of the mystery in your own case
as many think of it. To me there is no mystery — nothing
requiring explanation. But you know the strength of the
tie which binds the average Englishman, Scotchman, Irishman
or American to his party. To break it is almost a crime. Now
you were a Republican prior to 1872. Then you left the
Republican party and joined the Democrats. In 1876 you
left the Democrats and joined again the Republicans. You
remained with the R's through 1880, and in 1884 left them and
went again to the Democrats. I am stating this not as I see
it, but as the average party man sees it, and speaks of it.
Two views are taken of this. The less intelligent conclude
that your changes are due to selfish and unworthy motives.
To them there is no mystery in your conduct. You are no
"enigma" to them. They see clearly why your political
conduct is what it is. I have often denied to such the cor
rectness of their accusations against you. But the other and
better informed class are confident that in what you have done
you are perfectly sincere and honest. But "How strange it
is," they say. They can't understand it. It is a mystery.
You are an "enigma." With such, the common explanation
1887] Carl Schurz 481
is, "Well he is a German"— or "He is a Free Trader." "He
is a good man — an honest man — a man of extraordinary
talents, but not a practical man in his political conduct."
Does this make clear to you what I meant?
With all friendship and good wishes,
Sincerely,
R. B. HAYES.
FROM MOSES COIT TYLER
CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
ITHACA, Aug. 30, 1887.
I read your two volumes on Henry Clay just as soon as they
appeared, and have been intending ever since to tell you of
my gratitude for the instruction and delight which they gave
me. It happened at the time that I was confined to my room
by a savage attack of rheumatism ; and it is literally true that
while reading the book I was able to forget the pains which
my enemy was inflicting upon me.
I congratulate you sincerely and heartily on the happiness
of finishing so great and noble a piece of work. I don't know
a more wholesome book on American political history. I see
in it not only the result of great and patient research applied
for that immediate purpose, but the fruits of a lifetime of
study, thought and practical experience in the affairs of state.
Your book will for many a year instruct the student of our
history and be an inspiration and a pure and elevating monitor
to multitudes of young men. I should like to express, also,
my sense of satisfaction in the delicacy, power and charm of
its literary style.
I have long thought that if an opportunity should occur,
I should be glad to say a word to you respecting your career
in American politics. I first heard of you distinctly in 1860
—when I was but recently from college. I have observed
closely your sayings and doings since then. I have myself
been entirely free in my political relations, long voting with
the Republican party from my convictions as an anti-slavery
man. I find, on looking back over the whole period, that in
VOL. IV. — 31
482 The Writings of [1887
every vicissitude and combination of political parties, I have
invariably been in agreement with you. This of course is of
little account to you ; but to me it gives an interest and a con-
,fidence in your political character and judgment, which I can
now feel for no other American statesman living.
I really fear that this may seem a little too blunt and crude
in its expression. I write in some haste, but very sincerely.
What you say of Gallatin's place in American political history
will yet be applied to one whom I have often compared to
Gallatin.
TO MELVILLE E. STONE1
NEW YORK, Oct. 3, 1887.
Last night I received from you a telegraphic message
requesting me to give you by wire my opinion of President
Cleveland's Administration, to be published on Tuesday.
I did not comply with your wish, not as if I were disin
clined to oblige you, but because I consider it a matter
of doubtful propriety to confront the President, at the
moment of his arrival as the guest of the citizens of
Chicago, in a Chicago newspaper with the criticism pro
nounced by all sorts of men upon his public conduct.
If that criticism is favorable, it will be apt to appear as a
mere compliment for the occasion. If it is unfavorable,
it ought not to be thrust at the President where he appears
merely as a guest. This being my opinion, you will
pardon me for not having responded to your telegraphic
request.
TO MAYOR HEWITT
Nov. 5, 1887.
Permit me to introduce myself to you as one of a large
number of citizens who, without regard to your party
1 Editor of the Chicago Daily News.
1887] Carl Schurz 483
affiliations, supported you when you were a candidate for
the mayor's office. At the instance of some of them for
whom I then spoke, I address you now.
In saying this I do not lay claim to extraordinary
consideration. I mention it only in order to remind you
of the fact that the ground upon which the independent
citizens supported you was well understood. We believed
that as mayor of this great city you would infuse an
element of superior intelligence and honor into the con
duct of our municipal affairs, and, by the force of your
example as well as by the legitimate use of your influence,
endeavor to emancipate them from the rule of that narrow-
minded, selfish and not infrequently corrupt partisanship
from which the community has in the past suffered so
much injury and disgrace. You cannot fail to remember
how you encouraged that belief.
No just man will deny that many of your acts have de
served and obtained the applause of your fellow-citizens.
So much the more is it to be deplored that now you have
taken a step which, in its evil effects, threatens to out
weigh all the good you have done or may do during the
rest of your official term; and here I express not only
my own, but the opinions, as far as I know, of all those
who supported you without being moved by partisan
motives.
The contest for the district attorneyship has at this
time assumed unusual importance — not on account of
personal or party considerations, but because it involves
great public interests. The corruption so long prevailing
in our municipal affairs has seriously injured the welfare
as well as the good name of this community. A vigorous
prosecution of the thieves and betrayers of public trusts,
of bribe-givers and bribe-takers, was felt to be the first
step necessary if the public interest was to be protected
and the disgrace wiped out. When at last that vigorous
484 The Writings of [1887
prosecution took place it was hailed by all good citizens
as the breaking of a better day. Everybody knew that
it was owing mainly to Mr. Martine, who controlled the
operations of the district attorney's office, and to Mr.
Nicoll, who worked up and conducted the trial of the
boodle cases. This was so generally understood that
when Mr. Martine desired a place on the bench, as was
proper enough, Mr. Nicoll was almost universally looked
upon as his natural successor. There was a general
feeling that he had managed the prosecution not only
with skill and untiring energy, but also with that firmness
against adverse pressure, that fearlessness of the power
of those he had to bring to justice and of their friends,
which are especially indispensable under such circum
stances. And since the district attorney's office appeared
as the soul of the prosecutions, as the principal protector
of the public interest and honor, Mr. Nicoll, who had
done so well in the past, was regarded as especially
trustworthy for the future, in fact, as the special repre
sentative of the vigor of the law.
That ordinary political hucksters who derive their
sustenance from selfish combinations should have opposed
him was not surprising. But nobody reckoned you
among that class. You are a man of recognized ability
and high social standing. You have the prestige of a
distinguished public career, and, as the head of this great
municipality, of important official position. Many a time
you have given the people to understand that you regarded
public office as a public trust. When you oppose what
is generally looked upon as demanded by the public
voice as well as the public interest, it must be expected
that you have weighty reasons for it — reasons corre
sponding with your character and station.
You have given us those reasons in a letter addressed
to the Harlem Democratic club, and pardon me for saying
1887! Carl Schurz 485
that to many of your friends they have been a painful
surprise.
You say that originally you had been willing to do all
you " could in a proper way to secure Mr. Nicoll's nomina
tion" — thus admitting the propriety of it. Why, then,
did you not do it? Because, some time in September
last, Mr. Nicoll had told you that "he preferred to resume
his private practice of the law." My dear Mr. Hewitt,
you and I are no novices in public life. When you tell
me that such a casual remark about preferring private
station must be taken as a conclusive reason against
bringing that man forward for office, if he is otherwise
fit and desirable, you will certainly not expect me to
receive that statement without a smile. Have we not
both heard it said many a time that not the man should
seek the office, but the office the man? Do we not both
remember many instances when public men were urged
and finally prevailed upon to take office, much against
their original desire? A prominent case of that kind is
fresh in my memory ; it is that of the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt,
when, after repeated declarations that he did not desire
that office, he permitted himself to be nominated for the
mayoralty. But you give up your argument in your own
letter; for you say that Mr. Fellows wished to retire to
his private practice just as much as Mr. Nicoll, but that
"he was solicited to accept a nomination, which he neither
expected nor desired." So it appears that the wish to
retire to private practice was conclusive against Mr.
Nicoll, but not against Mr. Fellows, and that, in spite
of such wish, the nomination could be urged upon Mr.
Fellows, but not upon Mr. Nicoll. You must, therefore,
pardon sensible men if they do not take your argument
as serious.
But you give another reason. "In this condition of
affairs," you say, "the nomination of Mr. Nicoll was
486 The Writings of [1887
demanded by certain newspapers which are either not
the organs of the Democratic party or are distinctly
opposed to its principles." Well, what of it? Do you
mean to say that the advocacy of Mr. Nicoll by news
papers not the organs of the Democratic party would
make him less efficient in the prosecution of evil-doers,
a less valuable district attorney to the city of New York?
I remember when Abram S. Hewitt was a candidate for
mayor, newspapers "not the organs of the Democratic
party" advocated his election. Did he repel them?
Did he think it for himself a disqualification for the office?
Indeed, you say that one of the newspapers spoke in
a dictatorial tone. What of that? Would that have
diminished Mr. Nicoll' s qualifications for the place?
Would it have lessened the importance of the prosecutions
by a man of his proven trustworthiness? Let me ask you,
instead of indulging in feverish imaginings about "news
paper bosses" and "brooding Buddhas," to look the facts
calmly in the face. It was not one newspaper that at
first expressed the demand for Mr. Nicoll's nomination.
It was almost the whole press of this city; it was the
Herald, the Sun, the World, the Times, the Tribune, the
Staats-Zeitung, the Evening Post, the Commercial Adver
tiser, the Mail and Express, Harper's Weekly, the Independ
ent and others. And why did these newspapers, in
almost unbroken chorus, agree in that demand? Not
because they wanted to start a popular current, but
because they moved in it. They did not create public
sentiment, but they simply obeyed it. They only gave
voice and expression to a demand which embodied the
best impulses of our people and did honor to the com
munity — the demand for justice and good government.
Will you make us believe that, as "self-respecting
men," you and your friends among the leaders of the
Democratic party could not have yielded to that de-
1887] Carl Schurz 487
mand because among the newspapers expressing it there
was one you did not like? Let us see where that kind
of "self-respect" has carried you.
I know that we cannot expect our candidates for office
to be perfect angels. I am not in favor of criticizing
the private conduct of candidates for office, unless it is
absolutely necessary. But it becomes absolutely neces
sary when that private conduct reveals faults of character
which would render the candidate unfit for the office to
which he aspires. Mr. Fellows is an eloquent man, and,
I suppose, a pleasant companion. He may possess other
estimable qualities; he may be good yet for many things
in this world. But recent revelations have served to
illustrate some of his weaknesses, which, in fact, have
long been known, and which make him especially unfit
for the duties of a public prosecutor. He stands self-
confessed as having, after losing a considerable sum
of money which he did not possess, in gambling, paid
his gambling debt with a note, the payment of which
he sought to avoid by pleading in court the law
against gambling. He stands self-confessed as having
solicited a pecuniary favor from William M. Tweed, the
champion public robber and corruptionist of this land —
and that immediately after he (Fellows) had left the
employment of the prosecuting attorney of this county,
and after Tweed's unexampled misdeeds had become
clearly known to him.
In private life you would, as a "self-respecting'1 man,
probably leave any one guilty of these things to the society
of his boon companions, to the mercy of his creditors
and, perhaps, to the attention of the police. As a "self-
respecting" business man, who wishes to preserve the
good repute of his firm, you would hardly make him your
partner or manager, or recommend him to your neighbors
for confidential employment. Can you, then, as a "self-
488 The Writings of [1887
respecting" public man, advise your fellow-citizens to
intrust him with almost uncontrollable power over
those interests which, at this moment, are to them the
dearest — even the good name of the community? As a
" self -respecting" mayor of New York, can you ask the
people of the city to put the indictment of gamblers
at the discretion of a gambler evading the payment
of his debts, and the prosecution of bribe-givers and
bribe-takers at the mercy of a man who did not blush,
when just rising from the study of Tweed's crimes, to
beg a pecuniary favor from him who in our history
stands as the very embodiment of corruption? Would
you thus intrust the honor of the community to one who
has confessedly shown that his character lacks the first
elements of the sense of honor required in the office of
public prosecutor?
Since your "self-respect" would not let you recognize
the moral sense of the community which favored Mr.
Nicoll, I invite you to contemplate calmly the " self-
respect" which you enjoy as the eulogist of the "simple
Christian life" and the high character of Mr. Fellows.
And now, do you really think, as your letter seems to
intimate, that unless the people elect to the district
attorney's office a man who has been capable of trying
to escape from his gambling debts under the cover of the
very law against gambling, and of begging pecuniary
accommodations from the most notorious public thief
in the land, your party will be defeated in the Presiden
tial election next year, and that, as you say, "this State
will open the Treasury to jobbers and to schemes foreign
to the purposes of our Government and to the best inter
ests of our people"? Do not deceive yourself. If the
Democratic party has been hurt by anything connected
with this struggle about the district attorney ship, it is
by the perverseness of some of its leaders, who rejected
i887] Carl Schurz 489
the man who most clearly represents at this juncture
the cause of justice and good government, and by the
nomination of a man whose success would make every
rascal in the land rejoice. It is by the blind infatuation
which has led these leaders to drag even the National
Administration with them into the mire of a bad cause.
What malignant enemy of President Cleveland was it
that induced Mr. Cooper to extort from him that most
unfortunate letter intermeddling in New York City politics
on the side of the typical "dead beat" as a candidate
for an office which is the guardian of the public honor?
If the President had had a true friend in your councils,
that friend would have strained every nerve to confirm
his disinclination to descend from the high dignity of his
office ; that friend would not have failed to remind him of
1882, when the meddling of the National Administration
with New York State politics resulted in the most sweeping
opposition victory on record; that friend would have
struggled to the bitter end against the publication of the
President's letter after the new revelations concerning
Mr. Fellows's career, in ignorance of which, I have no
doubt, that letter was written, and after learning which
I trust he would wish it never had been written.
I shall say nothing in extenuation of the fact that the
President permitted himself to be so misused. But cer
tain it is that the bitterest enemies of the President
and of the Democratic party could not have dealt them
a more vicious blow. For more than thirty years I have
been an attentive observer of political events, and never,
never have I witnessed more wanton recklessness on the
part of party leaders, sacrificing the interests and good
name of a great municipality, the character of a National
Administration, as well as the interests of their party and
cause, to their blundering folly or their small selfishness.
No, sir; the injury you and your friends have done to
490 The Writings of [1887
your party and your cause by the nomination of such
a man as Mr. Fellows would not be repaired, but it would
be aggravated, by his election. " He serves his party best
who serves his country best," and surely the rank and file
of your party can, under existing circumstances, do no bet
ter service to themselves and to their cause than by show
ing that, whatever the vagaries of some of their leaders, the
masses at least are sound at heart and worthy of confidence.
To the last minute I shall not cease to hope that your
true self-respect will reassert itself and draw you away
from that side on which, as you well know, you can find
to-day every thief, every corruptionist, every law-breaker
in New York, including those who have run to Canada—
for there is not one of them who does not pray for the
election of Mr. Fellows; not one who does not stand in
deadly fear of Mr. Nicoll.
But if we cannot be spared the incredible spectacle of
the mayor of New York asking the people on the score of
"self -respect" to put in the place of public prosecutor a
person whose self-confessed and absolute moral unfitness
would be an encouragement to the very class to be pros
ecuted, then, I trust, the citizens of New York will prove
self-respecting enough to take care of their own honor by
giving an overwhelming majority to a man whose charac
ter has stood the test of severest trial, who has made him
self a terror to evil-doers, whose election will show that
our people really demand honest government, and whom
they can exhibit as their choice without shame.
FROM GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS
STATEN ISLAND, Nov. 7, 1887.
My dear Schurz: You never did anything more timely,
more conclusive or more patriotic than the letter to Hewitt.
It is a great public service. — Always yours.
i888] Carl Schurz 491
TO OSCAR S. STRAUS1
NEW YORK, Feb. 7, 1888.
Your very kind letter of November I5th has had to
wait very long for a reply. I shall attempt no apology
for you know what New York life is. I am sometimes
quite out of patience with it and seriously think of trans
ferring my household to some place in the country.
All I hear from you and about you is so good that as
your friend I could hardly wish it better. I have no
doubt you will come out of your official trials with honor
and bring many pleasant memories home with you. I
am not surprised to learn that you do not find much time
for literary work. The performance of your official
duties, strictly speaking, would probably leave you leisure
enough. But it is the nothings of life, that part of social
intercourse that does not do anybody any good, to which
we have to bring the greatest sacrifices in the way of
scattering and frittering away our working power.
Of myself I can only say that I am well and pretty
firmly on my feet. I expect to sail for Europe in April,
but it is not probable that I shall extend my travels as
far as the dominions of the Sultan. When I shall have
to return here, I do not know yet; perhaps about mid
summer, perhaps later. I have begun another historical
work, beginning where the Life of Henry Clay ends, in
1852. I intend first to write the history of the political
struggles which immediately preceded the civil war;
the period from 1852 to 1861, in one or two volumes.
And if then I still have work enough in me, I mean to
undertake a history of the civil work [war] itself — a
political, not a military history. But I must confess that
the task rises up before me in such awful proportions as
1 Then U. S. Minister to Turkey.
492 The Writings of
to make me doubtful whether I have strength enough to
carry it out.
Let me give you in a few words my view of the political
situation.
Cleveland's message on the tariff has stirred the country
profoundly. It has made him some new friends, but it
has frightened others away. On the whole I think it
has strengthened him. The question is whether the
Democratic party will stand up to its support. If it does
and renominates him upon a strong revenue-reform
platform, and then makes a vigorous, determined fight,
it will, in my opinion, make great gains, especially in the
Northwest, as well as in New England, and carry the
country.
But will the party stand up? That is not yet certain.
There is a faction darkly working against Cleveland under
the leadership of Governor Hill, who does not seem to
have given up his own Presidential aspirations, of Randall
and of Gorman. Their object, if they cannot compass
Hill's or Randall's nomination, is at least to prevent
Cleveland from getting a two-thirds vote in the Conven
tion. On the other hand the feeling for Cleveland is
strong, and the intrigues of his opponents in the party
will in all probability be doomed to failure.
It is not so improbable — although I hope it will not be
so — that the Democratic party, lacking in courage as well
as in intelligence, will compromise on the tariff and, as
it has been in the habit of doing, try to persuade people
that it is not as dangerous an enemy of the high tariff as
the Republicans make it out to be. That would make
an apologizing and, therefore, a weak campaign.
On the Republican side Elaine is decidedly in the lead.
In my opinion there is but one thing that can prevent his
nomination. The protectionists are very much frightened.
Their fright may possibly drive them to the conclusion
i888] Carl Schurz 493
that they cannot afford to handicap their imperiled
interests with a Presidential candidate of bad repute.
In that case Blaine may be thrown overboard; in any
other case his nomination appears to me certain.
There are four possibilities :
1. Cleveland and Blaine are nominated, and the
Democrats adopt a platform in full accord with Cleveland's
message. This would, in my opinion, make Cleveland's
success sure and fruitful.
2. Cleveland and Blaine are nominated, and the
Democrats yield on the tariff issue. This would make a
more or less personal campaign with the advantage still
decidedly on Cleveland's side.
3. Cleveland and some Republican other than Blaine
are nominated, and the Democrats stand by Cleveland's
message. I should then still call Cleveland's chances
good.
4. Cleveland and some Republican other than Blaine
are the candidates, and the Democrats yield on the tariff
issue. I should then think the result very doubtful.
A fifth possibility — Cleveland's defeat in the National
Convention — I do not contemplate. If such a thing
could happen, it would create an entirely new situation,
probably fatal to the Democrats.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, March 7, 1888.
You would like to go with me to Europe? And how
glad I should be if you did! The only charm of high
office consists in the opportunities it furnishes for doing
some service, but its honors are not an equivalent for
494 The Writings of [1888
its burdens. I for my part thoroughly appreciate the
privileges of private station, and have learned to look at
public life and its struggles in a contemplative and judicial
mood. I do not know whether I could feel the gaudium
certaminis as I did in times gone by — although, when I
read of a speech like that delivered in the Senate by
Ingalls a few days ago, I do wish I were on the floor of the
Senate once more, if only for twenty-four hours.
The copy of the fisheries treaty which you speak of as
having been mailed to me, has not yet arrived. But I
have read the treaty in the newspapers. However an
unscrupulous party spirit may cry it down, I have no
doubt the good sense of the American people will do you
justice. They will understand that the settlement of
international differences is brought about by mutual
accommodation, and that a treaty can be dictated only
after a successful war, or by a strong Power to one much
weaker, with a threat of war. The "small politician"
does, indeed, abound in these days. But he will not be
able to control public opinion with regard to international
topics.
You are very kind in offering me the hospitality of your
house during my prospective Washington visit and I ap
preciate it highly. But I know better than to quarter
myself upon a Cabinet Minister, especially a Secretary of
State, who is overburdened with social duties. Moreover
I have already promised Henry Adams to be his guest.
But I shall report myself to you as soon as I get there and
spend as much time with you as you can afford to lose—
at least I shall want to do so.
The death of the Kaiser, which is reported this afternoon,
may be followed by curious complications. He was a
great restraining power in Europe. Your Ministers at
Berlin, Petersburg and Vienna will have to keep their
eyes and ears open.
i888] Carl Schurz 495
EMPEROR WILLIAM I1
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: — Summoned by the German
societies of New York I stand here to give expression to
the feelings which have been aroused in us by the death
of the first Emperor of the reborn German nation. Not
for a promulgation of political creeds are we met. Here
I see before me native Americans to whom the German
Empire is a foreign land. Even the honored chief of
our National Government, members of his council, the
presiding officers of the two houses of Congress, the
governor of our State, the mayor of our city, and more,
the father of American history, as well as other lights of
science, are, if not in person, at least with their expressed
sympathies, here present. And as to us German-born:
I see here the strict republican, and by his side the man
who in his native land was an equally strict monarchist.
I see here survivors of those who, after the year 1848,
after unsuccessful struggles for honest convictions, sought
the shores of the New World as refugees, hardly believing
then a day could come when, without breaking faith
with themselves — for a self-respecting man does not
hesitate to be truthful and just — they would unite with
the younger generation in the funeral cortege of one of
the princes who had sent them into exile. Before you
stands one of them, who lost many friends under the iron
hand of the Prince now mourned, and who himself escaped
from that iron hand with difficulty and peril.
But whatever may be our origin and our antecedents,
here we are assembled as citizens of the great American
Republic, to which belongs our faithful devotion. We
remember well the old and wise rule of this Republic
1 A eulogy delivered in German at the memorial service in New York
City, March 21, 1888. The translation published in the New York Times,
March 22, 1888, has been revised by the Misses Schurz.
496 The Writings of [1888
never to meddle with the affairs of the Old World,
even though as American citizens we are permitted to
take a warm interest in the destinies of the peoples
from whom we sprang or to whom we are bound in sym
pathy. This mourning service, thousands of miles from
the country which has been ruled by the scepter of the
departed Emperor, has therefore nothing of the perfunc
tory tribute of allegiance which the subject is wont to
pay to his sovereign. Neither do we speak the language
in which that allegiance traditionally expresses itself.
The universal and free expression of opinion here indicates
how genuine is the feeling expressed in Germany ; and our
simpler words carried across the sea are evidence of the
mourning that is there expressed in more formal speech.
A common sorrow makes the whole world kin.
This is, indeed, a rare manifestation. How many kings
have died in this century whose death did not elicit more
sympathy in America than any ordinary event of general
interest! Why, then, this general emotion after Kaiser
Wilhelm's death? Why these flags at half-mast, these
eloquent eulogies, this universal impulse to lay a wreath
upon the dead Kaiser's grave? He was certainly no
republican. Forty years ago he helped to suppress with
relentless power the revolutionary insurrections the spirit
of which found almost undivided approval in America.
His severe assertions of princely authority by divine
right, his principles as to the share of the will of the people
in the government, his preference given to the military
element in the organism of State were more than foreign
to American ideas. The development of constitutional
forms in Germany under his dominion appeared to
American ways of thinking little in harmony with the
spirit of this century and the civilization of the German
people. Not a few of his measures of government suf
fered the severest criticism from Americans. These
Carl Schurz 497
things would have sufficed in determining the judgment
passed upon any other prince. But with all this Kaiser
Wilhelm was by far the most popular monarch among
Americans whom this century has seen, aye, even more,
a truly popular man.
We all know the reason. Under his auspices was
satisfied that profound yearning which the German had
carried in his heart through so many years of misfor
tune and humiliation, the yearning to be once more a
united and great people. Thus he was at the same time a
King and a popular leader. In indelible characters his
name is written upon the monument which in the history
of the world marks the rebirth of a great nation. Like
a heroic poem appeared this tremendous event which our
times witnessed with amazement and upon which posterity
will look back with wonder. And this heroic poem tells of
the warrior King, as he, the snow of old age upon his head,
surrounded by his paladins, in the midst of his armed
people led his armies into the field and piled victory
upon victory; how he then came home adorned with the
imperial dignity as the emblem of the finally united and
now powerful and glorious nation, and how he, centuries
hence, will live in the history and legends of the German
people, like Frederick Barbarossa, a figure standing in
dim, mythical splendor.
This was Kaiser Wilhelm who, when the one great
deed had illumined all his past, entered into the heart of
the Germans, as a national hero, crowned with victory,
whom this heart with German fidelity and gratitude held
and cherished as an honored national patriarch, whose
joys and sorrows, hopes and cares, the people felt as their
own; whose wishes were seldom crossed without regret;
before whose window day after day the multitudes as
sembled to catch one more look of his countenance, and
to cheer his old eyes with signs of attachment; whose
VOL. IV. — 32
498 The Writings of [1888
venerable image even during his life, similar to the old
legend, exercised its charm far beyond the German
boundaries until, at last, the heavy burden of years
brought him to the grave. And when at that grave it
is said that no future Emperor will bear the crown of the
Empire as his equal it is true in a sense of profound
significance.
This does, indeed, not mean that no successor may
equal or even surpass him in mental power, for his gifts
were not those of genius; but he did possess the gift
invaluable in a ruler — a gift of mind and of character at
the same time — to perceive with a clear eye the genius,
the wisdom and the energy of others, to accommodate
himself with modesty to the superiority of others, and to
open to them the sphere of action and of glory, aye,
without jealousy to see the merit of others under his
orders placed, in the opinion of the world, above his own.
In September, 1870, after the battle of Sedan, he offered
in the circle of his faithful ones, but heard by the whole
civilized world, this toast: "We must to-day drink the
health of my brave army. You, Minister of War von
Roon, have sharpened the sword; you, General von
Moltke, have wielded it, and you, Count Bismarck, have
lifted Prussia to the present altitude of its power through
the conduct of its policy. " Well, and if Roon, Moltke
and Bismarck had done all this, for which King William
expressed to them his gratitude, before all the world,
what then remained for King William himself? The
merit of having brought to light and of having given free
scope to the statesmanlike genius of Bismarck, the organ
izing genius of Roon and the military genius of Moltke;
the merit of that sound sense which, sacrificing pride and
prejudice, puts those more capable into action and en
courages them to the highest exertion of their power; the
merit of that unselfishness which is so often lacking in
i888] Carl Schurz 499
the powerful, which permitted him to say after an achieved
success to Bismarck, Roon and Moltke: "This is your
work." This made him neither a great statesman nor
a great general, but it made him a successful ruler and a
capable head of a government doing great deeds. How
ever, this quality of mind and character has by no means
been without example in the house of Hohenzollern,
and not on this account can it be said that Kaiser Wilhelm
will not have his equal on the imperial throne of Germany.
He stands alone and his position will always be unique
as the link which binds together the old time and the new.
His childhood saw the deepest humiliation of the father
land. With his mother, the noble Louise, Prussia's Re-
gina Dolorosa, he was compelled to fly from the capital
conquered by Napoleon. The French Empire, which
had crushed Prussia and subjugated Germany, was to
him not a mere foreign state, but the product of revolu
tionary ideas. He, like all those around him, saw the
salvation of his country only in a strong military power
ever ready to oppose hostile armies, and in an unlimited
royal power with which to suppress revolutionary ideas.
These were the traditions of his house, these were the
prevailing views of his time, the only ones with which he
came in touch. Under their exclusive influence he grew
up. Thus his principles and conceptions of duty formed
themselves, and to those principles and conceptions of
duty he has held fast all the days of his life. Like the
other Princes of his house, he, as a boy, became a soldier,
but more of a soldier than the others. His soldier-like
zeal for service and the article of creed that the King
according to his will must care for the welfare of the people,
and that every subject owes obedience to the King, filled
his whole horizon. As a youth he saw how the promises
of representative institutions, which had been given in
the year 1813 in the days of the popular insurrection
500 The Writings of [1888
against the Napoleonic despotism, remained unfulfilled
because they would have been dangerous — dangerous to
public order, which to him meant the same thing as
the unlimited power of the King. As a man he found
himself face to face with the revolutionary movements of
the years 1848 and 1849, to which again the French
Revolution had given the immediate impulse. The
soldier, the first subject of the King, as he called himself,
knew of no other duty than to strike down insurrections
with armed force. Thus he went into the field and with
severity he did his work.
At last the day came when he himself mounted the
throne and with his own hand put upon his head the crown
"given him by God." That was to him no mere tradi
tional form of speech — it was in him a deep-rooted religious
conviction. The years of revolutionary movement had
indeed resulted in a constitution, but the most essential
part of all constitutions was to the King the least possible
limitation of his power. It was his honest, aye, his pious
faith, that God had made him King and ordained him
to govern his people according to the best of his knowledge
and conscience and that it was the duty of the represen
tatives of the people simply to help him in doing so ; that
he would violate his own sacred duty if he permitted any
essential part of the kingly power bestowed on him by
God to escape him, and that those who would undertake
to curtail the power of the monarch would be culpable of
a revolt against God's commandment. His army was to
him the sword of the Lord, the shield of the order of the
universe, and of all human obligations he perhaps knew
of none more sacred than the oath of fidelity sworn to
the colors. The servant of the state was according to
his mind not irresponsible, but politically responsible
only to the monarch. Irresponsible he did not feel
even himself, but responsible only to God and his own
i888] Carl Schurz 501
conscience. This was his constitutionalism — a con
stitutionalism certainly little in harmony with the con
stitutional ideas of other countries, but by no means
sprung from the lust of power of a despotic nature.
Indeed no greater contrast can be imagined than that
between Kaiser Wilhelm and the typical despot who,
despising and oppressing the people, squanders the marrow
of the land in lazy, luxurious extravagance. His life was
one of such frugal simplicity that the millionaires of this
country would do well to follow his example. As a boy
he had made a vow at the time of his confirmation in
church in which the following sentences are found:
' ' I will never forget that the Prince is also a man and that
he also is subject to the universal laws. I will cultivate
a sincere, cordial benevolence to all men, even the low
liest, for they are my brothers. I esteem it much higher
to be loved than to be feared, or merely to have a princely
authority." This was not a mere youthful idealism,
evaporating quickly. He had a warm heart for the people,
and this it was that brought him so near to the people's
heart. Many of the plans of legislation to better the
condition of the laboring man probably sprang from this
source. He had a profound feeling for the sufferings of
the poor. Deputations telling him of want and misery
often drew tears from his eyes. The proud Hohenzoller,
the unbending soldier, the severe champion of kingly
power, the unforgiving suppressor of insurrections, the
fame-crowned warrior King felt a real yearning to be
personally popular. This was not a mere princely whim
nor was it cold calculation. It was a trait of his heart.
It was natural to him to give pleasure even to strangers
whom he met, by a friendly greeting; he loved to show
himself, to satisfy the wish of the multitudes who daily
assembled before his window, but also to rejoice at the
signs of attachment which he received. If this multitude
502 The Writings of U888
had disappeared, as a symptom of indifference or antip
athy, it would have been a blow to his heart.
No prince could have taken the duties of governing
more seriously than the Kaiser himself. No blacksmith
at his anvil, no peasant on his acres, no merchant in his
counting-room could have devoted himself to his business
more conscientiously, more indefatigably, more indus
triously than Kaiser Wilhelm worked in his government
business. To concern himself with everything, great
and small, to look into everything, to manage everything,
or at least to help in conducting, was to him a stern
command of duty, and he who looks for an illustration of
that which is called in the Prussian idiom "service" will
find it in Kaiser Wilhelm's daily life. Into his last clear
moments, even into the feverish dreams of the hours of
his death, the thought of his official duties pursued him,
and with the voice of a dying man he gave to his successor
his counsels on the great interests of his country. "I
have no more time to be tired," he said when he felt the
last hour coming. But in his whole life he had given
himself little time to be tired.
Not only the welfare of his own people, but also the
peace of Europe he bore upon his shoulders. No opinion
could be more mistaken than that, after the achievement
of German unity, the Kaiser and his mighty Chancellor
had wished for further conquests or new feats of arms.
The Germans are a military but not a war-loving people.
The German army is the whole people in arms, and such
an army is not led into the field with a light mind. The
Danish, the Austrian and the French wars were prepara
tory to the foundation of German national unity, and
thus was this great problem of the time solved. The
united Germany is the guardian of the peace of Europe.
Without exaggeration it may be said that it has prevented
more wars than it has carried on. How great in that
i888] Carl Schurz 503
respect was the merit of the Chancellor the world knows,
but it knows also how the old Kaiser himself, with restless
care and zeal and in personal meetings and conversation,
made his friendly relations with other monarchs of Europe
tell for the peace of the Continent. And it is certain
that the restraining words of the friendly and powerful
old man not seldom fell heavily in the scale.
Thus he has in internal and foreign policies endeavored
to perform, with personal care and zealous activity, that
kingly duty which, together with the kingly power, he
felt imposed upon him by God. This conception of
monarchical power and duty was his political religion,
to which he held fast with the strong pious faith of his
nature and which he professed always with full sincerity.
To those principles he stood with open visor, and the
glory of this great national policy of his government and
the hearty attachment of the people to the old father on
the imperial throne helped him mightily to maintain
them. It is therefore less astonishing that under his
reign the development of constitutional methods did not
make more progress, than that it has progressed so far.
He stepped from the old time into the new, representing
the spirit of the old time in its most successful, most
venerable, most winning form.
The patriarch is departed, and with him the prestige
of the patriarchal regime. There can be no second
patriarch like him. When after that wonderful career
from misfortune and humiliation to highest power,
magnificent fame and almost unexampled popularity
the old Kaiser at last closed his eyes forever, there ap
peared a spectacle such as the world had not seen in
centuries. Not only the funeral pomp was extraordinary ;
not only did all the powers of Europe gather around his
bier, even France, once so grievously struck by his hand,
bringing a wreath to adorn it; but more than this: all
504 The Writings of
civilized peoples on earth, as if surprised by an event
expected for years, turned their eyes to the German
capital with cordial sympathy, but also with almost
anxious expectation, and everywhere the question was
asked, ' ' What now? " Almost universal was the thought :
"What is here being consigned to the grave is more
than a great historic personality, it is the strongest
pillar of a historic idea of government." So the whole
world attended this funeral cortege with the feeling of
awe by which man is touched in the face of a stupend
ous event.
An unusually universal and heartfelt sympathy turns
to the old Kaiser's successor. The name "Our Fritz,"
which Kaiser William first pronounced and which the
German people adopted with enthusiasm, has resounded
through the world as the name of a popular favorite ; and
in him who bore it, people saw a Prince who was closer
to the ways of thinking and feeling of the citizen than
princes ordinarily are. With profound feeling has all
civilized mankind lamented his terrible suffering and with
their whole hearts wished him recovery and a long life.
With the same feeling it watches his effort, in the uncer
tain days through which he struggles with his disease,
to impress the stamp of his own mind upon the great
inheritance Kaiser William leaves him.
Great, indeed, is this inheritance. Few as great have
been left by princes to posterity. May a benign fate
protect it. He who attentively contemplates the life
of states and nations during long periods learns to be
careful not to pass too dogmatic a judgment upon the
past and not to conceive plans and expectations too
sanguine for the future. He knows that new creations
in order to stand firm must be built upon that which is
vital, strong and durable in the past. He knows that
historical developments do not, without danger of relapse,
x888] Carl Schurz 505
move forward by great leaps ; but he knows also that they
do not stand still.
In obedience to the law to which all earthly things are
subject, the inheritance left by Kaiser William will have
further to develop itself in order to be in accord with the
character and the needs of the time. Nobody will dare
to say that he looks clearly into the future. But one
thing appears certain, the new German Empire, which
honors Emperor William as its father and its first head,
will stand all the firmer the more it can say of itself that
it has created what is the true aim and end of all govern
ment — a people united, strong and happy in liberty,
peace and progress.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, March 29, 1888.
I begin to fear now that I shall not find time to go to
Washington before my departure for Europe. The re
quest I intended to make orally, comes therefore to you
in writing. Considering myself completely retired from
active public life, I am going to undertake a literary work
of some magnitude. I purpose to write a political history
of the civil war — beginning with the election of Pierce
in 1852; and as our international relations played a very
important part in the history of that period, I wish, if
such a thing is possible, to get access to the state archives
of several foreign Governments, especially those of
England, France, Spain, Belgium and Holland. Now I
would ask you whether you would consider it consistent
with your official responsibilities to give me letters to
the United States Ministers in those countries, requesting
them to aid me to that end with their influence as much
as their relations with the Governments to which they
are accredited will conveniently permit? I do not know
5o6 The Writings of
whether such a thing can be done, but I thought I might
at least try. If you think it cannot be done, do not
hesitate to tell me so. I know your friendship too well
to doubt your willingness to serve me, under any circum
stances. I need not add that, in case it can be done, I
shall use the privilege accorded to me with the utmost
discretion. It is my ambition to make that historical
work worthy of its subject, and thus to render a little
service to the American people.
TO THOMAS F. BAYARD
NEW YORK, April 3, 1888.
Accept my heartfelt thanks for that gorgeous passport
and the very kind letters of recommendation. I have no
doubt they will help me greatly if anything can be done
at all.1
I thank you also for the kind things you say of my little
speech on the dead Kaiser. It has not been printed in
pamphlet form, and I must confess, I do not know why
it should be, as it is a mere ephemeral. There was a
good deal of curiosity here as to what I, an old "forty-
eighter," would have to say about an Emperor, and
about the very man, too, who in South Germany com
manded the Prussian troops against us, and who was at
that period the best hated of all the German princes.
The curious people found to their surprise how easy it is
to overcome such an apparent embarrassment of situation,
by simply telling the truth.
If I can do anything for you in Europe, please let me
know. ... I do not expect to be back before the lat
ter part of September, — unless the Republicans nominate
^ About getting access to foreign archives.
i888] Carl Schurz 507
Elaine again. His election would be so burning a disgrace,
so unmitigated a calamity to this Republic, that to help
in averting it I should hurry to the front once more.
TO COUNT DONHOF1
HEIMFELDER HOLZ, near HARBURG,
May 18, 1888.
Will you permit me, dear Count, to consider you as my
confidential friend in the great world of Berlin and to
encroach upon your time for a moment? Last week I
found a notice in a Hamburg paper which referred to a
report published in Frankfort about some remarks said
to have been made by Prince Bismarck to "two prominent
men from abroad." This notice speaks also of a denial
published in the Norddeutsche Allegemeine Zeitung. The
reporter of the New York Herald, who called upon me here
a few days later, told me that he had heard from the
banker Bleichroder that I had been indicated as one of
these " prominent men " and also that the words attributed
to the Prince had been made use of for purposes of spec
ulation on the bourse. Hereupon I tried to procure the
originals of the Frankfort paper and of the answer in
the Norddeutsche Allegemeine Zeitung. I have received
these articles, and at the same time an explanation
purporting to come from me, which appeared in the
Frankfort Europdische Correspondent.
All these things were entirely new to me. I have not
yet the faintest conception what may be the source of
these Frankfort publications. In America, where, by
the way, the journalistic spirit of invention is scarcely
more developed than here, I have learned to treat similar
things with indifference. I would do the same now, if
this case were not a rather serious matter for me. The
1 Translated by Miss Schurz.
508 The Writings of [1888
article of the Norddeutsche Allegemeine Zeitung, which is
generally supposed to be inspired by the Chancellor, and
the wording of which I now see for the first time, gives
rise to the supposition that the "unnamed men in the
background" may be equally responsible with the reporter
for the report circulated about the remarks of the Prince.
As it seems that I am regarded as one of these "men in
the background," you may well imagine how painfully
this affair affects me. As it happens, you yourself have
accidentally been a witness of the circumspection with
which I have treated the newspaper correspondents with
whom I came in contact, and you know how anxious I
have been not to commit any indiscretion. If I should
have reason to believe that the friendliness with which I
was honored by these eminent persons might now be
regretted by them as misplaced cordiality and might, in
a more or less direct way, be publicly so considered—
this would of course be in the highest degree painful to me.
May I ask you, who move familiarly in the social as
well as the political circles of the Prince, to tell me how,
in your opinion, the matter has been there regarded and
what view I am to take of it ? If I am imposing too much
upon your friendly sentiments, have the goodness to
tell me so frankly. But you will understand how much
I desire this explanation.
The reporter has played me another trick. A news
paper notice is circulating now that I have personally
requested the Crown Prince to intervene in the Techow
affair. x Of course there is not a word of truth in it. May
I ask you, by the way, if anything new has come to your
notice about this case? Mr. Rottenburg was so kind as
to let me hope that I should be informed if anything
could be done. But I have not yet heard anything.
1 Techow was an old '48er who had applied for amnesty so that he
might return to Germany, but the application was refused.
i888] Carl Schurz 509
TO L. S. METCALF
HANS FORSTECK, KIEL, GERMANY,
Aug. 13, 1888.
I have received your cable message and answer it by
letter, as I cannot put all I wish to say into a telegraphic
despatch.
The friendly contact I have had with Prince Bismarck
and other German statesmen, while on the one hand
giving me much information about German affairs, has
on the other hand greatly embarrassed me in writing
out my experiences and views for publication. They have
spoken to me with such frankness and confidence that I
feel myself under great restraint. No sooner had my inter
views with Prince Bismarck got into the papers than I was
flooded with requests to write about them. One newspaper
offered me as much as five hundred dollars for one single
column; another one hundred dollars each for a series of
letters on German affairs which I might make as long or as
short as I pleased. And so on. Whatever of temptation
there might have been in such offers, I resisted for the very
reason above suggested. When the requests were repeated
with increased urgency, I replied to one and all that I
would certainly not write anything about German affairs
until after my return to the United States, if at all. And
I have not written a line for publication, accordingly.
When I shall be in New York again I cannot yet tell.
For the last six weeks my eldest son has been in a private
hospital here suffering from a dangerous illness. . . .
FROM THADDEUS C. POUND1
WASHINGTON, July i, 1888.
Dear Sir: May I not, with propriety, address you concern
ing the political situation in your adopted country? We
1 Formerly lieutenant-governor of Wisconsin, and Republican Repre
sentative in Congress.
510 The Writings of
occupied common ground in 1884, both disagreeing with the
action of our party's National Convention, and both conspicu
ously, and I believe potentially, opposing the election of Mr.
Elaine for substantially the same reasons. The result of that
contest is now an open book, the preface of which promised
better than the later pages disclose. So long as the hero was
a freeman, he satisfied the independent citizen, but when taken
captive by partisan masters and personal ambition for a
second term, he suddenly dropped to the low level of the
Democratic party and its most offensive partisan methods.
The Republican party, with which I have never broken
allegiance, has just held its Convention, and nominated fit
and worthy candidates for President and Vice- President.
The issues, or the distinctive issue presented for the campaign
is sharply defined. I am squarely for Harrison and Morton,
and believe you capable of no different attitude. No man
can do more to promote the success of the Republican ticket
than you. I want to see you in the saddle, and bid you hasten
to recross the ocean and take the field. The battle is to be
one of reason and not of noise and bluster. I feel sure of the
reinstatement of the Republican party to executive control
on a higher plane of political and public morals than that
towards which it was drifting in 1884. May I promise your
speedy return and earnest cooperation?
TO THADDEUS C. POUND
FORSTECK, KIEL, Sept. 15, 1888.
Your letter from Washington asking me to "recross
the ocean and take the field" for Mr. Harrison reached
me some time ago. Being detained here longer than I
anticipated by circumstances with which our Presidential
election has nothing to do, I can only communicate to
you in writing the views which would govern my course
in the pending campaign could I return home in season.
I do so after having calmly considered the subject far
away from the excitements of the struggle.
i888] Carl Schurz 511
In condemning the concessions to the spoils element
in the Democratic party made by President Cleveland in
violation of his own original program, I go as far as his
severest critic among the friends of reform. With my ex
perience of public life, I cannot join in any of the excuses
or palliations which have been offered for them. I do
not think, for instance, that, had he unflinchingly done
those things which he had given the country reason to
expect of him, he would have been a " President without
a party/' The American people love that manly courage
which, in keeping good faith and in righting wrongs, does
not shrink from defying great odds. The spectacle of a
President telling his party friends that neither flattery
nor threats could tempt him to abandon a single iota of
his word, either in letter or spirit, would have stirred the
noblest impulses of the American heart. His very enemies
would have been compelled to (Jo homage to the intre
pidity of his rectitude. The party organization, seeing
that it could not command him, would have been obliged
to follow his leadership, for it could not have sacrificed
such a President without ruining itself. He might indeed
have lost the support of some of its worst elements, but
he would have gained on the other side the full confidence
and aid of a much larger number of patriotic men who
stood ready, without regard to political antecedents,
to rally around a thoroughgoing reformer. His party
would then have been morally as well as numerically
stronger than it is to-day. This, I think, would have been
the result; but even if such expectations had not been
entirely fulfilled, certain it is that by the example of such
conduct President Cleveland would have rendered a far
greater service to the cause of healthy politics and good
government in America than by anything else he has done
or could have done.
In view of the departures from the standards set up by
5i2 The Writings of [1888
himself, the extent and significance of which have, perhaps,
not fully come to President Cleveland's own conscious
ness, I can well understand the feelings and reasoning
of those of our independent friends who, after having
supported Mr. Cleveland in 1884, now, on account of his
failings as a civil service reformer, oppose his reelection.
I am very far from questioning the sincerity of their
motives when they argue that such shortcomings should
not be permitted to pass with impunity. But I differ
from them in answering the important question, whether,
if they succeeded in punishing Mr. Cleveland, they would
not at the same time punish the country still more.
The main consideration is, after all, how the public
interest in the largest sense can be best served. Con
cerning administrative reform, we have seen enough of
political life to know that, as to their devotion to the
spoils system, there is no difference between the working
politicians in the Republican and those in the Democratic
party. Both will occasionally yield to a demand for
reform from fear, or to make political capital, or shout
for it when in opposition; but both hate it at heart and
will exert their whole influence against it whenever they
feel at liberty to do so. There are exceptions, but not
many, on either side. It is true, a larger number of
friends of reform have been associated with the Republi
cans than with the Democrats. But nobody will pretend
that they control the nominations or the actual policy
of the party. It was, no doubt, owing to the pressure of
Democratic partisans that President Cleveland practically
gave up a very important portion of his reform program.
So it had, no doubt, been owing to the pressure of Repub
lican partisans that President Grant in his time threw
overboard the whole system, examination, rules and all.
And it is certain that the efforts President Cleveland
really did make in the way of reform found no counte-
i888] Carl Schurz 513
nance among Republican politicians. It is equally certain
that a Republican victory now would be followed by a
"clean sweep," with all that the term implies, involving
not only all Democratic officeholders, good and bad,
outside of the classified service, but the Republicans left
in office by President Cleveland, too, as Republicans who
consented to remain in place under a Democratic Adminis
tration are especially hateful to Republican politicians.
Is it reasonable to expect that Mr. Harrison, if elected,
would oppose such a " clean sweep" with greater courage
and firmness than was shown by Mr. Cleveland? Mr.
Harrison is, in point of personal character, no doubt
vastly preferable to Mr. Elaine. But neither his pro
fessions nor his antecedents stamp him as a man who
would resist the demands of the influential politicians
of his party. He would on the contrary, to the extent
of his power, meet them, as he asked his demands to be
met under a previous Republican Administration. The
cause of civil service reform would, therefore, have to
hope rather less from Mr. Harrison than from Mr.
Cleveland.
But, if I rightly understand the attitude of the Repub
lican party, it is really Mr. Blaine, not Mr. Harrison,
whom we are invited to put into power. Mr. Blaine
is vociferously proclaimed, not only as the "greatest
statesman," as the "real leader of the Republican party,"
but also as the "Premier," the "head of the Republican
Administration" that is to be. That Mr. Harrison's
Administration shall be under Mr. Blame's control
seems to be taken for granted, without any conspicuous
dissent. Mr. Harrison is so pointedly consigned to the
role of second man that his position as a candidate appears
grotesque in the extreme. It is an entirely new thing in
our Constitutional history that one person is to be elected
President of the United States for the very purpose
VOL. IV. — 33
514 The Writings of [1888
of permitting the Presidential power to be wielded by
another.
Such an innovation would appear in the highest degree
objectionable, even if a better man than Mr. Elaine were
to be the beneficiary. But as it is Mr. Elaine himself,
I am reminded of what you say to me in your letter:
"We occupied common ground in 1884, both conspicu
ously, and, I believe, potentially, opposing the election
of Mr. Elaine, for substantially the same reasons."
Those reasons I then elaborately explained to the public,
and they need not be recapitulated. They were sincerely
believed in and are as valid now as they were then. What
has happened since is certainly not calculated to weaken
them. Those who acted with us in 1884 upon sincere
motives can hardly deem it safe or creditable to the
American people now to invest with the power of "head
of the Administration" the same man whom they repudi
ated four years ago, and whom this year the prudent men
of his party would have feared to nominate under his
own name. I do not know whether it would not, in some
respects, be safer on the whole to make him President
in name as well as in fact, than to put him in control of
a President's power without a President's responsibility.
We have had a feeble indication of the consequences of
such a state of things during the few months of General
Garfield's Presidency, which ended with his tragic death.
The American people, I should think, have had enough
of that. But if the Republican party wishes to bring
on the full development and fruition of that sort of gov
ernment, my vote shall certainly not contribute to such
a result.
Neither am I frightened by the Republican campaign
cry that if Mr. Cleveland be reflected, the industries
of the country will surely be ruined and general distress
follow. Let me recall to you some historical facts. As
i888] Carl Schurz 515
you are well aware, it was not the tariff question which
drove the Independents from the Republican party in
1884. But then the tariff policy of the party was pro
fessedly not what it is now. For many years it was freely
admitted by the Republicans that the tariff, originally
intended to meet the financial needs of the war period,
and adapted to a very different internal-revenue system,
was full of unjust and offensive features, and that it must
be revised and reduced in its rates. One Republican
platform after another, one Republican President after
another, one Republican Secretary of the Treasury after
another, joined in this admission. There is scarcely a
Republican leader of note who did not advocate revision
and reduction at some time and in some way. A tariff
commission appointed under the very last Republican
Administration and containing the most pronounced
Republican protectionists strongly recommended an
average reduction of tariff rates of 20 to 25 per cent., as
demanded by the public interest. This was the teaching
we heard in the Republican school. But now, when the
Democrats attempt to do in a very moderate way what
the Republicans had for years been promising to do, we
are told that, unless this attempt be stopped, the country
will go to ruin. The very men who constantly declaim
about the "magnificent past" of the Republican party,
give us to understand that if the policy of tariff reduction
advocated during that "magnificent past" by Republican
platforms and statesmen had been carried out, distress and
misery would have been the lot of the American people.
It is a singular spectacle. For years we have been
told that, indeed, high protective duties were necessary
while our manufacturing industries were in the feeble
infant state, but that the protective duties would be less
needed as the manufacturing industries grew older and
stronger. Yet the more those industries cease to be
516 The Writings of
infants, the older and stronger they grow, the more
strenuously the Republican party insists that the high
duties must be maintained or even raised. And finally
it informs us in this year's platform that "rather than
surrender any part of the protective system," it will wipe
out the taxes on tobacco and whisky — taxes of the most
rational character, for they are in the truest sense volun
tarily paid on things that are not necessaries of life, and
one of which, the whisky tax, Thomas Jefferson, not
withstanding his hostility to excises, recognized as a tax
of sanitary value in a moral as well as physical respect.
Would not, but a few years ago, a proposition completely
to abolish the whisky tax have encountered the almost
unanimous opposition of the Republican party?
But more. It was the custom of the Republican party to
pledge itself in its platforms that the Government should
be administered with strict economy. The platform of
this year omits this pledge, and recommends the liberal
spending of the public money for a variety of subjects.
What this means is easily understood. There is a large
surplus in the Treasury. That surplus is constantly
increased by a revenue far exceeding the current needs
of the Government. Such a surplus, constantly growing,
is by every sensible man recognized as a public danger.
It not only withdraws from business channels the money
required for active circulation, but its very existence al
ways breeds jobbery and corruption. Everybody knows
that. How get rid of it? Common-sense would say
that if our taxes yield too much revenue, let us promptly
reduce our taxes, first those which are most irrational
and burdensome to the people. But the Republican
party tells us — rather than reduce the tariff, rather than
surrender any part of the protective system, let ever so
much more revenue than we need be raised, and let us
spend the money liberally in whatever way we can. In
i888] Carl Schurz 517
fact, we begin to hear the idea of an economical adminis
tration of the Government rather jeeringly spoken of as
a picayunish, narrow-minded policy. No true friend of
the country can witness such a tendency without serious
concern. A democratic government which constantly
raises a much larger revenue than it needs for an eco
nomical administration, and then embarks in lavish ex
penditures for the sake of spending the surplus — that
government is in a very bad way. Such a practice, some
time continued, will produce a carnival of rascality in our
public affairs compared with which the Tweed regime in
New York will appear like white innocence and virtue.
Such a practice, raised to the dignity of a system, would
be the moral ruin of the Republic.
When I thus see the Republican party sacrifice the pro
fessions and pledges of its better days — sacrifice the
often repeated promise to reduce the tariff — sacrifice the
whisky tax which but yesterday the Republican party
would have almost unanimously scorned to abolish —
sacrifice the idea of an economical administration of
government so essential to the morals of a democratic
republic — when I see it ready to sacrifice everything
" rather than surrender any part of the protective system,"
I am forced to the conclusion that the Republican party
has fallen completely under the control of selfish, grasping
interests, in which the spirit of monopoly is running mad.
The very arguments currently used in aid of that policy
are calculated to make one distrustful of the cause they
are to support. How in the world can anybody have the
face to say that the Mills bill would destroy the protective
system and thereby the industries of the country — the
Mills bill, which proposes tariff reductions much smaller
than those proposed time and again by Republicans high
in authority, in fact averaging considerably less than
those recommended by the Republican and protectionist
518 The Writings of
Tariff Commission! The Mills bill, which, if enacted
into a law, would still leave behind it one of the highest
protective tariffs the world has ever seen — aye, a higher
tariff than was designed under the stress of our civil war !
Equally astonishing is the argument that, if the danger
is not in the Mills bill itself, it is in the spirit animating
it, in the principles embodied in President Cleveland's
tariff message. What are those principles? That "the
necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people,
the duty on which adds to the cost of living in every home,
should be greatly cheapened"; and that "the duties on
raw material used in manufactures ' ' should be * * radically
reduced" or abolished. Against the second part of this
proposition the Republican party makes its open war.
According to them, the free importation of raw material is
to destroy the protective system and with it our industries.
No more self -evidently fallacious assertion has ever been
advanced. It will make Henry Clay, the greatest cham
pion of the protective policy this country has ever had,
turn in his grave; for it was he who said: "There are four
modes by which the industry of the country can be pro
tected, and one of them is the admission, free of duty, of
every article which aids the operations of the manufac
turers. " Nothing could be plainer. The recognition of
this truth is as old as common-sense. It has not been
confined to "free-trade theorists, " but been wisely embod
ied in many protective tariffs. That our tariff has not
recognized it is one of its peculiarly irrational features, for
it is in a great measure owing to the artificial enhancement
of the price of the raw material that the products of
American manufactures have not been more successful in
competing with those of other nations in the markets of
the world.
It is one of the curiosities of this campaign, that, as
I notice in the papers, some Republican protectionists
i888j Carl Schurz 519
speak and write as if the successful competition of Ameri
can manufactures in the foreign market were neither
attainable nor even very desirable to be striven for. As
to its being attainable, we know that we already sell
abroad manufactured articles in the production of which
the ingenuity and superior efficiency of American work
manship overbalances the disadvantages under which
American industry labors on account of the higher cost of
what Henry Clay calls "the articles which aid the opera
tions of the manufacturers." It is self-evident that, the
more these disadvantages be removed, the more will the
superior ingenuity and productiveness of American labor
get a fair field, the greater will be the variety and quantity
of American manufactures sold in the foreign market and
the more promising will be the development of our in
dustries. There are many foreign manufacturers who
appreciate this keenly. While theoretical economists
abroad, of course, applaud every movement in the eco
nomic policy of the United States which they consider as
emanating from sound principles, I know, from personal
observation, that European manufacturers who under
stand their business look forward with grave apprehen
sion to the time when American industry will be relieved
of the clogs which now hamper it and enter the markets
of the world to compete with them. They know well that
the competition of American ingenuity and energy, un-
trammeled by artificial shackles, will be to them of all
competitions the most formidable. They are right; for
competition in the foreign market, the rubbing against
the world on every field, will tend to stimulate and develop
to the highest potency the peculiar strength of American
industry, which consists in its inventive genius, productive
energy and skill of hand. The more advantageously these
great qualities come into play, the more successful will
American industry be. Necessity is the mother of in-
520 The Writings of [isss
vention, competition the stimulus of energy. Both in
vention and energy will gradually relax under a system
which, while promising artificial protection on the one
hand, creates artificial obstacles on the other. Let those
obstacles be removed, let American inventive genius and
productive energy enter the struggle with the outside
world on fair terms — in the first place with raw material
as free to us as it is to others — and you will open a most
fruitful field of activity to the strongest forces of the
national character.
That our manufacturing industries should be enabled
to enter the foreign market is especially important to our
laboring men. The mechanical appliances now existing
in the United States are in some branches of industry
already sufficient to produce in seven or eight months as
much as the home market will consume in twelve. Peri
odical stagnations in those branches must be the result.
As the laboring man well knows, it is of the highest con
sequence to him, not only to be well paid while employed,
but to be constantly employed. He will also without
difficulty understand that the more limited the market is,
the more easily will it be glutted, and the more subject
will industry be to periodical stagnation; and that, on the
other hand, the wider the market is for the products of
labor, the more constant will be its employment.
Nothing could be more amusingly audacious than the
efforts made by Republicans to persuade the American
workingman that his wages depend absolutely on the
maintenance of our tariff, and that American labor will be
repressed to the level of "the pauper labor of Europe" if
we "surrender any part of our protective system." Re
publican speeches and papers fairly teem with compari
sons of wages in the United States and wages in England,
to show the effect of the protective tariff in one country
and of free trade in the other. I shall not here inquire
i888] Carl Schurz 521
into the correctness of those comparisons; but, assuming
them to be correct, what do they prove? That it is the
tariff which makes wages higher in America, and the
absence of a tariff which makes them lower in England?
As everybody knows, wages range higher in free- trade
England than in protectionist Germany. Now, if it is
true that wages depend upon the tariff, then free trade
must have caused higher wages in England, and wages in
Germany must have been depressed by protection. Or,
if we assume that wages range higher in England than
in Germany, somehow, in spite of English free trade, may
it not be said with equal justice that wages range higher
in America than in England, somehow, in spite of Ameri
can protection?
The discussion has its humors. In an article on ' ' Wages
and the Tariff," published by one of the foremost cham
pions of the present protective system (New York Trib
une, August 1 4th), the following statements occur: "The
competition of foreign labor is felt in many branches of
manufacture in England. They are not protected against
the competition of inferior classes of foreign labor who
earn less and live in greater wretchedness than them
selves." But where are those "inferior classes of foreign
labor who earn less and live in greater wretchedness" to
be found? In such countries as Germany, France and
Belgium, countries which have protective tariffs. Thus,
while we are told that in high-tariff America workingmen
must be protected against the pauper labor of free-trade
England, we are also told that the workingmen of free-
trade England must be protected against the pauper labor
of the high- tariff countries on the European continent.
If it is true that wages in one country which has a
protective tariff are higher than wages in another country
which has free trade, and also that wages are higher in
the country which has free trade than in several other
522 The Writings of
countries which have protective tariffs, it cannot possibly
be true that the relative rates of wages are determined by
the existence or non-existence of a protective tariff system.
The Republican argument that, if the tariff be disturbed,
the wages of American workingmen must fall in conse
quence, is thus clearly set at naught by notorious facts.
I shall not theorize upon the wages question, but simply
mention the further facts, that such a measure as the
removal of duties from raw materials has never resulted
in a reduction of wages; that wages in the United States
considerably rose during the low-tariff period from 1846
to 1861; that wages have also risen since that time, but
most in the unprotected industries, and that wages in
England have risen since the beginning of the free-trade
period between twenty and one hundred and fifty per cent.
Tariff protection is therefore not at all a condition sine
qua non of a rise in wages. Moreover, every candid and
reflecting observer understands that in the United States
the rate of wages is largely affected by the abundance of
fertile, cheap and easily accessible lands and an almost
infinite variety of natural resources offering labor, ample
opportunity and reward; that American industrial labor
is distinguished by a superior inventive genius, skill and
productive energy which make it intrinsically more valu
able than foreign labor ; that, in other words, the American
workingman earns more than the workingman of the old
world, because he generally produces more; and that the
American rate of wages will not only be maintained, but
will have the best chance of being increased, if American
industry be given a larger field of operation by relieving it
of those impediments which in a great measure exclude it
from the markets of the world.
It is avowedly the Republican plan of campaign to
frighten the public mind with a picture of a destruc
tive collapse of our manufacturing industries and of the
Carl Schurz 523
national prosperity in case the policy advocated by Presi
dent Cleveland in his tariff message be approved by the
people. That this collapse should be brought on by
giving our industries what a prudent protective system
would always have given them — free raw material — is
so absurd in itself that I greatly doubt whether those who
make the prediction themselves believe in it. Such a
breakdown might follow a sudden and sweeping abolition
of all our tariff duties, which I am sure nobody contem
plates. I do think, however, that if there is any danger of
it, it will be, not in consequence of the Democratic, but
of the Republican policy.
Nothing is more apt to produce sudden and strong
revulsions in public opinion than a defiantly selfish atti
tude on the part of a privileged and powerful interest in
the community. That "the manufacturers of the United
States are most directly benefited by our tariff laws,"
that they are " get ting practically the sole benefit, or at
least the most directly important benefits" of them and
that in consequence they "make large fortunes every
year when times are prosperous," profits indeed in some
cases exceeding all bounds, is an admission which in
unguarded moments will escape Republican leaders.
Witness the famous ' * Fat Circular ' ' of the President of the
Republican League. When now those protected interests
proclaim through the mouth of the Republican party
that they are ready to sacrifice almost anything, and to do
almost anything, "rather than surrender any portion of
the protective system, " the proclamation has a peculiarly
irritating sound. There is something of the insolent reck
lessness in it which, in the career of grasping power, usually
precedes the day of judgment. It reminds one some
what of Tweed's famous reply to his accusers: "What are
you going to do about it? " If this defiant spirit should be
encouraged by a Republican victory in this Presidential
524 The Writings of
election, it will be likely to go so far in its exactions as to
provoke a violent rebound, and there is great danger that
then the whole protective system, every tariff duty that
favors any particular interest, will, without any regard to
immediate consequences, be swept away at one stroke.
I cannot express myself too strongly on this point. The
question is not whether tariff reform will or will not come.
It is sure to come, either now or in the near future. The
question really is, whether it shall come in the temperate
and prudent shape proposed in Mr. Cleveland's message,
tending to strengthen rather than to endanger the manu
facturing industries, or in the shape of an angry reaction
a little later, threatening such loss and confusion as is in
cident to sudden, violent and sweeping changes of system.
The danger that, if moderate tariff reform be rejected
now, such an angry reaction will follow, is greatly increased
by the appearance in the business world of the " Trusts. "
I notice that the Republicans greatly exert themselves to
create the impression that the organization of Trusts has
nothing to do with the protective tariff. But an intelli
gent people will not fail to see that the two contrivances
are designed to serve the same object: to enhance the
price of goods by cutting off competition. The protective
tariff does this by Government interference — by the im
position of a tax upon the imported foreign article. The
Trust does it by controlling the production of certain
articles and the consequent fixing of the price through a
coalition of the producers. It is said that Trusts have
been formed to control the production and sale of things
on which there is no tariff duty at all. This is true in
some instances. But in a large majority of cases the
Trusts cover branches of industry which are at the same
time "protected" by the tariff. In fact, the protective
Tariff and the Trust are children of the same parentage;
the Trust is the younger brother of the Tariff.
i888] Carl Schurz 525
When complaint was made that the protective tariff, by
cutting off foreign competition, obliged people to pay
higher prices for the things they had to buy, the protec
tionists used to reply that this might be true, but only at
the beginning; that under the fostering care of the pro
tective system, a multitude of manufacturing establish
ments would spring up at home ; that they would compete
among themselves; that this home competition would
soon bring down prices in the home market as much as
foreign competition would have done, or even more; and
that thus the people would have the benefit of a great
development of home industries and, at the same time,
of low prices in consequence of home competition. This
had a fair and consoling sound. But when home com
petition begins to tell, the Trust steps in, and lets us know
that industries which are protected against foreign com
petition by the tariff will keep up prices and maintain
or raise their profits by combination among the producers,
and thus protect themselves against home competition
too. Thus the people are deprived of the benefit of one
as well as the other, and the Trust appears as the protec
tive idea pushed to its logical extreme.
Efforts are being made to reach the Trusts by legal
prohibitions and penalties. They may ultimately suc
ceed, but experience teaches that such attempts do not
usually succeed at the beginning. We know how difficult
it is to frame laws on such subjects which cannot more
or less easily be evaded. The open and secret friends of
the Trusts will, if they cannot prevent legislation, exert
all their ingenuity to smuggle clauses into it which will
prevent it from becoming effective. It will probably
require much experimenting to provide laws which com
pletely answer the purpose. In the meantime, the people
will continue to suffer extortion and tyranny from the
very culprits. Much more expedient will it be, while the
526 The Writings of [1888
efforts at effective law-making go on, to say to the manu
facturers combined in Trusts: "As you will not let the
people have the benefit of home competition, you shall
not have the benefit of protection from foreign competi
tion. The tariff duties on your articles shall therefore be
promptly done away with. You shall not eat the cake
and have it too. ' ' This policy will be unquestionably
just and at the same time effective in going straight to
the mark.
To be sure, the attempt may be made to defeat this
relief too, by forming combinations controlling the pro
duction and sale of the articles concerned all over the
globe, as has been done in the case of copper. But it is
evident that such world-wide coalitions are extremely
difficult to organize. They are possible only when the
number of producers is comparatively small, and then only
when production for the market requires a very large
capital at the start. But even then they are apt to be
broken into somewhere on the face of the earth by some
body who is strong enough, and finds it to his interest to do
so. At any rate, the prompt admission of foreign com
petition, where home competition is artificially cut off,
is a remedy surer of immediate effect than any other
within sight. As shown by the example of the Standard
Oil Trust, it may not prevent combinations for the control
of production, but it will in almost every case prevent
extortion by the artificial raising of prices if the articles
concerned are at all produced abroad.
The protected interests which, as to their standing in
public opinion, have so long relied upon the charm of
captivating cries, should not be blind to the fact that the
springing up of Trusts has put upon the tariff question
a new face. The Trust is extortion undisguised. It
bluntly bids the people "Stand and deliver. " The efforts
to obscure the relationship between Trust and protective
i888] Carl Schurz 527
tariff will not succeed long, if they succeed at all. No
free and spirited people will long endure such combina
tions when their nature has once been understood. It is
therefore no mere fancy when I speak of an angry reaction
not unlikely to come, causing sudden and sweeping changes
without regard to immediate consequences, unless a policy
of just and rational reform, such as proposed in President
Cleveland's tariff message, be adopted in time. That
angry reaction will be all the more probable if it should
appear that the legislation against the Trusts, which is
now being devised, will not remedy the evil as thoroughly
or as promptly as the public interest demands.
All parties interested would, therefore, do well very
calmly to consider whether the choice they have now to
make, instead of being between tariff reform and no tariff
reform, is not really between a moderate and easy change,
beneficial to the industrial interests of the country, to be
adopted now, and a sudden, violent and sweeping re
vulsion, doing rough justice in obedience to an exasperated
popular feeling, unmindful of existing interests, to come
in the near future. I am in favor of prudent and tem
perate reform, and wish to avoid the danger of abrupt,
sweeping and possibly destructive changes. I am, there
fore, in favor of the tariff policy proposed by Mr. Cleve
land, and against that of the Republican party. And,
in my humble opinion, the manufacturers as well as the
laboring men will best serve their own interests if they act
upon the same view of the subject.
Having said this, I am willing to repeat that, as I and
probably most Independents think, President Cleveland
would, by setting the example of strictest fidelity to all his
reform pledges expressed and fairly implied, have rendered
the Republic a greater service than he has done by any of
his official acts. But that is no reason why we should
overlook or underestimate the merit of the other things he
528 Writings of Carl Schurz
actually has done. During his Presidency the country has
been relieved of an impression sedulously fostered by
party spirit, and until within three years sincerely enter
tained by many good citizens, that one-half of the people
were disloyal and dangerous to the Union, and that the
Republic would go to destruction if the Government
passed from the hands of one party to those of another.
This is a gain to the morals of our political life which
cannot be too highly appreciated. Moreover, President
Cleveland has given the country an administration of
public affairs which, notwithstanding its shortcomings,
has, in many important respects, by its ability, its fidelity
to the public interest and its wholesome conservative
spirit, deservedly and in a high degree won the approval
and confidence of the people. And, finally, he has by his
tariff message identified himself and his candidacy with
an economic policy which bids fair to correct existing
evils, to obviate destructive disturbances, to enlarge the
remunerative activity of industrial labor and to secure
a steady development of the general prosperity.
The situation may in some things be unsatisfactory to
many of us, as I frankly admit it to be. But we are not
excused from doing our duty as citizens and voters, if we
cannot have the ideal party or the ideal candidate. We
have conscientiously to make our choice among the
possibilities presented to us, and thus to serve the interests
of the Republic as best we may. Upon due consideration
of these possibilities, and exercising in this as in other
cases my best judgment as an independent citizen, I find
that I cannot support Mr. Harrison, as you wish me to do ;
but I shall deem it my duty to vote for Mr. Cleveland if
circumstances permit me to reach home in time for the
election.
END OF VOLUME IV
MTURN TO Dm ffiOM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
General Library .
UnivSsity of California
Berkeley
UVBRSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11